Manchester City Council Bill [ L ords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ L ords]

Canterbury City Council Bill and Nottingham City Council Bill

Sadiq Khan: I have a revelation to make, Mr. Speaker. If you were to draw a line graph from 2007, when there was zero rolling stock, to the middle point up to 2014, when we expect a rolling stock of 1,300, you will find that we are not on schedule but ahead of schedule, with more rolling stock being ordered. I am confident that with a combination of a cascaded rolling stock and the new stock, the hon. Gentleman will see his wishes delivered. He is right to point out that if we followed the advice of some, there would have been massive cuts this year and savage cuts in the next few years.

Chris Mole: We have agreed with Network Rail that it will make up to £50 million available in the near future to tackle improvements at the 10 key stations identified in the stations champions report as being in most need of improvement, seven of which are in the north-west.

Ann Winterton: I commend the work of the British Transport police, for the simple reason that they have to look after not only the personal security of rail passengers, but station property. There is no comparable organisation to deal with bus and coach travel. I should like Congleton station to be improved, with better lighting, CCTV and eventually-we hope-customer information screens. When representatives of the British Transport police attended a meeting that I had convened, I discovered that there had been little liaison with the local constabulary. Will the Minister consider that point? It is important for the two sides to get together to deal with the problems.

Chris Mole: The proposed A417 Cowley to Brockworth improvement scheme has not been included by the south-west region in its forward programme of priorities up to 2019 contained in its regional funding advice submitted earlier this year, and I have accepted that advice. As the major scheme is not being pursued, the Highways Agency has commissioned a study to identify what smaller-scale, more affordable measures might be pursued to improve the performance of the road. I expect the study to report later next year.

Paul Clark: Most certainly. Invariably, getting the message across about the implications of certain actions in cars is fundamental. I congratulate Gwent police on what they have achieved, and we need to continue exactly that sort of work. The pre-driver programme that we are looking at for 14 to 16-year-olds will seek to change behaviour; we also recognise the importance of getting people to understand that once they are behind the wheel they are in control of a very important vehicle.

Sadiq Khan: I have received many representations, including those from my hon. Friend, on the concessionary travel scheme recently, mainly in relation to funding issues. As she will know, I have recently launched a consultation regarding the concessionary travel special grant funding for 2010-11. Representations have been received from Members of both Houses, local authorities, councillors and members of the public.

Natascha Engel: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The reason why the campaign to safeguard this scheme has been so important is that the scheme has meant so much to the over-60s, especially in such very rural places as North-East Derbyshire. Will he use this opportunity to put on the record a guarantee for this scheme under any future Labour Government?

Sadiq Khan: May I put on the record a recognition of the work that my hon. Friend has done, and not only in lobbying me? I remember that at the previous Transport oral questions she asked a similar question about access issues for her constituents on rural buses. The £1 billion that goes towards concessionary bus travel in off-peak hours means that 11 million older and disabled people in England can use buses at off-peak times. Had we accepted the advice to make a cut in this year's budget from a 2.25 per cent. increase to a 1 per cent. increase, that would have led to cuts. We will not means-test this, or cut it as some would want us to do.

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend asks an important question. At the moment, we are unable to have a harmonious system across borders because, as he will appreciate, these matters are devolved. Councils near the borders have made arrangements to reach agreements with councils on the other side of the border. He will appreciate that if we were to harmonise cross-border travel with Scotland and Wales, the cost would be extreme, but we will keep this under review and we encourage local authorities to reach agreement where they can.

John Pugh: I thank the Minister for that slightly disappointing answer. We have already had a number of bids for rolling stock from different regions of the UK, but the 142s on the Manchester-Southport line are some of the oldest, most unsafe and, at times, most overcrowded stock in the network. Surely, if anything is a priority, this is.

Sadiq Khan: Of all the rolling stock interventions, Northern is the most complex for a variety of reasons, not least because five major cities are involved and because of the interrelationships between the different cities. I have referred before to the discussions that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Chris Mole), has had with the integrated transport authority and passenger transport executives in the region. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we are working more closely with the PTEs and Northern to form a joint undertaking of the predictions, which will include his constituents and his area, as well as on the appraisal process. We hope that there will be good news around the corner.

Sadiq Khan: Since our last Question Time in October, my Department has made a number of significant announcements, including today, about winning bids from a £30 million fund for green buses that aims to encourage and help bus operators and local authorities to buy new low-carbon buses to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We have also made announcements about a further £30 million programme to develop electric car-charging points in six leading cities across the country, and about a review by Sir Peter North of the law on drink and drug driving, for which a report is expected in March 2010.

Peter Bone: I am sure that the Minister shares my horror that, this year, the number of children who were killed or seriously injured while riding their bikes has increased by a third. The Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust has pointed out that four official websites show children not wearing safety helmets. Is the Minister able to tell the House when the report on the effectiveness of cycle helmets will be published?

Sadiq Khan: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his track record on this important issue. He moved a ten-minute Bill on this issue, and he is also, like me, the father of young children who ride bicycles. On the research that he referred to in his question, he will welcome the fact that we hope to receive some response by the end of this year about the effectiveness of cycle helmets. I am happy to meet him to discuss how we can move much faster in this important area, because I am as impatient as he is to see progress to ensure that zero young people are injured-or, of course, killed-on our roads as a consequence of riding their bikes.

Andrew Turner: Since 2007, the Driving Standards Agency has been looking for practical motorcycle testing facilities on the Isle of Wight. My constituents still face a long and costly journey to the mainland to be tested. The EU allows that test to be carried out on the road, so why will the Government not allow appropriate island and rural roads to be used?

Edward Vaizey: A recent report by the Association of Train Operating Companies identified Wantage Road station in my constituency as one of just seven stations in the country that could be reopened. Will the Minister support me in pressing Network Rail to undertake a further detailed evaluation to reopen the station, with a view to getting it into Network Rail's investment programme for 2014-19?

Simon Hughes: Given that Ministers forced the public-private partnership on London Underground, will they now call for a report from Transport for London on why so many underground routes are closed every weekend for engineering works, disrupting the plans not just of Londoners but of people from all over Britain and further afield? It is really not helpful to London's tourism and economic health.

Harriet Harman: There are regular discussions between Equality Ministers and ministerial colleagues in the Home Office on the question of human trafficking. Trafficking is by nature a covert activity, so it is difficult to be precise about the numbers. The Association of Chief Police Officers, the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre and others are on course for an estimate of the number of women trafficked into the UK for sexual exploitation to be made available inearly 2010.

Harriet Harman: In order to reassure hon. Members that the Government, the Metropolitan police and police forces around the country will be taking strong action to investigate and bring to court those engaged in human trafficking for the purposes of exploitation, I should explain that human trafficking includes the offences of breaching immigration rules, rape, assault, kidnap, abduction, fraud and serious organised crime. A unit was set up in the Metropolitan police to focus on the new context of human trafficking, which involves all those crimes. Training is under way for both prosecutors and police, and we have the UK Human Trafficking Centre. A unit in the police was funded especially to upskill and improve the understanding of the Metropolitan police so that the whole issue could be mainstreamed. Funding has been made available for that, and it continues.

Harriet Harman: We are working internationally, across Europe, through the UK Border Agency, which is working with its counterparts, to identify victims of trafficking. We have worked through Eurojust, which is the European network of prosecutors; and we have worked through European police forces. There is international action going on; it is by definition an international crime. There is also work taking place to freeze assets internationally, because sometimes many more than one or two countries will be involved. This is serious and organised crime; it is international; and we are all working together, as well as domestically, to track down the perpetrators and protect the victims.

Fiona Mactaggart: But the unfortunate truth is that it is very hard to investigate and successfully prosecute cases of trafficking and sexual exploitation, and the Metropolitan police unit was making inroads. Will the Minister confirm that if the success in increasing the number of prosecutions does not continue, the decision will be revisited?

Harriet Harman: I pay tribute to the police and prosecutors for bringing to court so many cases in which the victim was an unbelievably vulnerable victim of human trafficking, but still the authorities managed to support them to give evidence and bring the traffickers to justice. Since the introduction of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, there have been 113 convictions for human trafficking offences, but beyond that there have been many more convictions for offences such as rape, fraud and assault. The police and prosecutors are making good progress on bringing offenders to justice, and that will protect victims. Obviously, we keep-

Harriet Harman: I think that there are particularly specialised skills in terms of supporting the victims, and that is why we maintain financial support for the POPPY project, the Eaves housing charity and other organisations that support victims. However, all those involved in investigating serious and organised crime need to be aware. When I was Solicitor-General, I saw one case in which a woman had escaped from a brothel where she had been held captive and, effectively, raped 10 times a day-day in, day out, week in, week out. She found her way to a local police station, and even though she hardly spoke any English they understood and realised what had happened to her. We have to ensure that every police officer in every police station understands this issue. She cannot be expected to find her way to a specialised unit. This has to be understood across the board and mainstreamed, and we will give all financial support to the police and other authorities to ensure that that happens.

Theresa May: We all agree that human trafficking is the modern-day slave trade and remains a prevalent form of violence, particularly against woman and girls. There is a need to take strong action against trafficking. Does the Minister agree that reports such as the recent one from London Metropolitan university, which downplayed the extent of trafficking and was based on asking a very small number of women whether they thought that they had been trafficked-hardly the best basis for evidence-do not help to make the case for action? The case for ensuring that every police officer is suitably trained and understands human trafficking and related issues would be far better made if we raised awareness generally about the extent of the problem. What are the Government doing to ensure that we do just that?

David Taylor: The Equality Bill is welcome, but older people, our largest vulnerable group, would surely still benefit from the appointment of a commissioner to oversee their access to services across the public sector, an idea promoted in my own private Member's legislation. What discussions has the Minister had with the Equality and Human Rights Commission on how our older citizens can best secure rights in this area equivalent to those of the younger section of the population?

Philip Davies: How can we have any confidence in this Government on the issue of age discrimination when their much-vaunted Equality Bill still allows employers forcibly to sack people into retirement at the age of 65?

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the forthcoming business.
	I make no apologies for repeating my call, supported by others, for debates on the pre-Budget report and on Afghanistan. Last week the right hon. and learned Lady offered the fiscal responsibility Bill as providing the right opportunity to debate next week's PBR, but that Bill is not even scheduled to have a Second Reading before Christmas. On Afghanistan, she said some weeks ago that she was "sympathetic" to the idea of a debate, but she has given no firm commitment since. The whole country is talking about these issues except the House, and it is indefensible for her not to provide time for debates. May I make a suggestion? Against the wishes of Conservative Members, the Government are proposing that the House should rise on 16 December. If she cannot find time for those two debates, will she postpone the Christmas recess by just two days so that the House can have the time that it wishes to debate the state of our economy and the welfare of our troops?
	May we have a statement by the right hon. and learned Lady on the Prime Minister's claim yesterday that Britain is not the last country in the G20 to leave recession? He clearly stated:
	"Spain is a member of the G20 now and it is in recession."-[ Official Report, 2 December 2009; Vol. 501, c. 1101.]
	Given that Britain has been chairing that group all year, he should know that Spain is not a member. Does she believe that the Prime Minister ought to correct his mistake and confirm for the record that Britain is indeed the last country in the G20 to exit recession, or does he not do apologies?
	Will the right hon. and learned Lady give us a statement on her handling of the Equality Bill yesterday? As the Opposition repeatedly warned, the time allocated for debate was wholly insufficient. Five groups of amendments, including several Government new clauses, were sent to the other place without any scrutiny. Last week, she told us that the Solicitor-General had tabled all Government amendments a week before Report, but what use is that if there is no time to debate them? It is disappointing that the Leader of the House has not shown more leadership when it comes to her own legislation. What proposals does she have to prevent that from happening again?
	May I ask yet again when the Leader of the House will give us the dates for the Easter recess? She chose not to respond to my question about that last week. Why is that particular recess causing such irreconcilable difficulties?
	What has happened to our topical debates? Today we have had a summary, as a written statement, of the debates that we have had, but we have had no topical debates for more than a month and no indication of when the next one will be. What has happened to them?
	May we have a statement on the appointment of the EU's Economic Commissioner? For weeks the Prime Minister lobbied furiously in Brussels to secure the top post for Tony Blair, and only got his fourth choice as the new High Representative. Meanwhile, the French have quietly assumed control of the internal market, with President Sarkozy gloating that the British are "the big losers". Yesterday, the Chancellor caved in to a decision to establish three EU supervisory authorities for financial services. Given those developments, will the right hon. and learned Lady ensure that the Minister replying to this afternoon's debate on Europe will respond to the growing concern about the threat to one of the country's main generators of wealth and employment?
	Finally, will the right hon. and learned Lady join me in condemning the Prime Minister for launching a class war against those with aristocratic connections who were educated at public school?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Gentleman asks for a debate on the pre-Budget report, and he was consistent in asking for that on behalf of the House even before he became shadow Leader of the House. I can tell him that there will be a full day's debate on the pre-Budget report, which will be announced shortly, so we have accepted the representations that he started making when he was on the Back Benches and has now brought to the Front Bench.
	As far as the very important question of Afghanistan is concerned, as Leader of the House I take it very much as my responsibility to ensure that the House is informed regularly about the situation, and that does happen. I ensure that there is an opportunity to debate it at large and hold Ministers to account, and that every week that this House is sitting, there is an opportunity for a debate on Afghanistan. [Hon. Members: "What?"] I ensure that there is an opportunity for the House to be informed and hold Ministers to account, or to debate the matter. The country expects Afghanistan to be right at the top of the House's agenda, and it certainly is. May I say what an honour and privilege it was yesterday to attend the remembrance celebration in Belfast cathedral for those from 19 Light Brigade?
	I turn to the right hon. Gentleman's points about the recession and the G20. I understand that Spain is in the G20 plus, so the Prime Minister was absolutely right on that point. This Government have taken action to protect the economy in the face of a global financial crisis. As a country that has a large financial services sector that goes back decades, of course we are particularly affected by a crisis in that industry. Of course, as a trading nation, we would be affected by a global crisis that has reduced trade. The truth is that this Prime Minister has not only protected our economy from recession, but actually shaped the international approach, which has made sure that the country goes forward. I must say that had it been left to the policies of the official Opposition, we would not even be beginning to come out of recession, which is what we are doing at the moment-we are moving into recovery.
	It is important that the Equality Bill received proper scrutiny from the House. May I just reiterate what happened? The Joint Committee on Human Rights scrutinised the Bill and did a report on it, as did the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. There were 38 hours of scrutiny in Committee, leaving aside evidence taken from the public as part of the Public Bill Committee hearings. There were two Select Committees, then 38 hours in Committee. Report stage is one day in this House unless major new policy is introduced, but no major new policy was introduced between Committee and Report.
	I am sure that this will be a disappointment to Opposition Back Benchers, but there was no Front-Bench request for an extra day on Report until the business was announced- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Leader of the House, but there is far too much sedentary wittering taking place on the Opposition Benches, both from the Liberal Democrats and from the Conservatives. The Leader of the House must be heard. I want to make progress and I want to get everybody in.

Harriet Harman: I totally agree with you, Mr. Speaker. There is much too much sedentary wittering-it should be for me to witter at the Dispatch Box. I am still on my third point about scrutiny and I have many more to go.
	There was no new policy in the Government amendments or new clauses. The Equality Bill will now go to the Lords, who will scrutinise it, and any amendments will come back to us. I pay a warm tribute to the Ministers-the Solicitor-General and the Parliamentary Secretary, Government Equalities Office-who took this very important Bill through the House. The Opposition tabled an amendment declining to give the Equality Bill a Second Reading and abstained on Third Reading. The Tories are not and never will be the party of equality.
	We have not even got to the Christmas recess, so I do not know why the shadow Leader of the House keeps on asking about the Easter recess. I thought he was against recesses, yet he keeps calling on me to announce the Easter recess. It will happen all in good time and in due course.
	As far as the European Commissioner is concerned, we have to work together with our European partners to make sure that we have proper financial regulation across Europe and across the world as a whole, but of course the Financial Services Authority is accountable to this House and we have our own domestic regulation. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there will be a debate about European affairs this afternoon, when hon. Members can discuss our excellent position, in having the very best Foreign Secretary we could have, the very best Business Secretary we could have, and a really excellent foreign representative for the European Commission in the shape of Cathy Ashton.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about class war. May I just say that clause 1 of the Equality Bill, which we introduced, puts a new duty on public authorities to narrow the gap between rich and poor? The Conservatives voted against that. We have put up the top rate of tax for those who can most afford to pay, to help us with the deficit as we come out of recession. The Conservatives are opposed to that and instead are just putting forward tax cuts for the richest. Theirs is truly the party for the few, and we are the party for the many.

David Heath: Why is the Leader of the House not giving the House time before Christmas, given the urgency, to discuss the recommendations of the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons-the Wright Committee? It is not a matter of waiting for a Government response. We are interested not in what the Government have to say about the reform of the House of Commons, but in what this House has to say. Will she consider that as a matter of urgency?
	May we have a debate on the banking sector, particularly those banks that are actually owned by the people of this country? I note that members of the board of the Royal Bank of Scotland wish to resign if they are not allowed to pay extraordinarily large amounts of money to people in their company. May I say that there is nobody standing in their way, and this House should have the opportunity to say so?
	I am tired of asking for a proper debate on Afghanistan, but I hope that we will have one in the very near future. May I also ask for a debate on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which worries hon. Members on both sides of the House?
	May we have a statement on care homes? I was fortunate enough to open a newly refurbished home for elderly people with dementia in my constituency last week, and I am very conscious of the good work that so many care homes do. However, we should be concerned when we read reports of standards not being as good in some parts of the country. May we have a statement on that issue?
	I entirely agree that we should not have a class war. When I hear people say that those with double-barrelled names should shorten them for the benefit of the electorate, it really upsets me. But we should have a debate on non-domiciled tax status, especially as it applies to Members of this House and the other place, and would-be Members. It is very important that we show that taxes are not just something paid by other people.
	Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, for which we finally set up the board last night, is now a public body subject to freedom of information legislation?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman asks about the report on parliamentary reform. That is an important report and its complexity deserves detailed consideration and a proper response from the Government, which it will get. I do not want hon. Members to get the impression that the situation is anything other than as follows: my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) proposed to me that it would be a good idea to set the Committee up and that it could make far-reaching proposals. I welcomed that suggestion and took it forward. Indeed, I brought the proposal for the Committee to the House. It has done very important work and its members can be sure that that work will be carried through.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the banks. It is important for the economy that the banks lend, and there is still too much evidence that businesses, big and small, are not getting the finances they need. The Government are going after the banks to ensure that they fulfil their responsibilities to the economy and start to lend. Also, they must pay back the loans that they have been given-and that is under way-and they should exercise restraint on bonuses. The Government have been clear about that.
	As far as Afghanistan is concerned, in the business of the House-be it Prime Minister's questions, Defence questions, general debates or statements-Afghanistan is at the top of the agenda of this House of Commons, and rightly so.
	The hon. Gentleman asked for a topical debate on Gaza, and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) asked about topical debates in general. Topical debates will be announced shortly, and I will take that as a representation. In fact, other hon. Members have asked for topical debates on issues to do with the middle east and Gaza, so we may look forward to that being a subject.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about care homes and mentioned the importance of the care of the elderly. That is important not only in residential care homes, but in their own homes. He will have heard me announce the Second Reading of the Personal Care at Home Bill, and we have all been concerned that some councils have been identified as not caring properly for adults-providing only "adequate" care, when we all want really good care for the elderly and vulnerable adults. That is what they need, and that is what their relatives want. I am very concerned that Southwark council has been identified as one of those councils providing care that is only adequate. Instead of protesting about the findings against it, it should be buckling down to address the concerns that have been identified.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about non-domiciled tax status. The old saying is "No taxation without representation." Perhaps we should turn that around and say, "No representation without taxation." People who seek to enter the House and levy taxes should show that they are prepared to pay those taxes. It is not appropriate for anybody to think that they can enter the House and make others pay taxes that they decide not to pay themselves. However, that is for the Conservative party to sort out, not me.
	The chair and chief executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority are in place already and getting on with their work. They are getting down to it expeditiously and in a way that the House would want them to do. We passed the resolution last night, and like all other public authorities, they will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Twenty-eight hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. As usual, I should like to accommodate everybody, so I issue my usual appeal for single, short questions and comparably brief replies.

Jessica Morden: A few weeks ago, the Contaminated Blood (Support for Infected and Bereaved Persons) Bill received its First Reading in another place. Will the Minister say when it is likely to appear on the Floor of this House?

Julie Kirkbride: May we have a debate on the application of Criminal Records Bureau checks and what might be the law of unintended consequences? I have a sad constituency case involving a 13-year-old boy who was found guilty of a sexual offence. As a result his ambition to become a teacher has been completely crushed, because the offence will have to be declared in any application that he makes. However wrong it was to commit the offence, it seems wrong that a 13-year-old boy should have his life chances so affected and have to face the resulting psychological damage.

Harriet Harman: The situation is being dealt with under legislation passed by the House. Sexual offending is often a repeat offence, which is why we have a system of registration. No doubt cases such as that of the hon. Lady's constituent will be caught by the law, but that law was passed by the House.

Harriet Harman: I am happy to condemn those who do not recognise that people expect banks to play their part in the economy, to lend to businesses, to pay back the money they needed because they nearly fell off the edge of a cliff as a result of recklessness and irresponsibility, and not, at the back end of it, to award themselves massive bonuses. I agree with my hon. Friend.

David Crausby: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make time for a debate on primary care trusts, such as that in Bolton, which spend huge amounts of public money? The Secretary of State for Health refuses to answer questions on PCTs, but in my view, they should be open to scrutiny by Parliament?

David Drew: In the previous Session I introduced a presentation Bill on financial disclosure. With the announcement that there is an Opposition candidate standing who is a non-dom, and with some question marks over at least one Peer who may or may not be resident in this country, is it not time that the Government looked at the issue properly, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman said, to see whether it should be a criminal offence to stand for Parliament yet refuse to pay full tax in this country?

Andrew Pelling: Will the Leader of the House take the opportunity to find out why the Christmas tree fell down on Monday morning? Did the contractor put the Christmas tree in properly, and should we expect some compensation for the new contract that had to be put in place to put it back up again?

Andrew Robathan: Last week in business questions the Deputy Leader of the House, ably coached by the right hon. and learned Lady, listed the achievements of the Modernisation Committee as, inter alia, topical debates and deferred Divisions. Could the organ grinder explain how non-controversial topical debates, the subjects of which are chosen by the Executive, help to hold the Executive to account, and how deferred Divisions contribute to better scrutiny? Can she also say when we will have a debate on parliamentary reform and the Wright report?

Harriet Harman: The Deputy Leader of the House has tabled a written ministerial statement today setting out the requests that we received for topical debates and the subjects of those debates. The hon. Gentleman will see that, by and large, virtually all topical debates were chosen as a result of requests from Back Benchers or Opposition Front Benchers, so the idea that we sit there deciding what to discuss in topical debates is frankly wrong. Just one debate had not been the subject of such requests-a debate about carers-and that was because the outside carers' organisations had put in a request for a debate. I also think it very rude and unwarranted of the hon. Gentleman to make disparaging remarks about my hon. Friend, who is an excellent Deputy Leader of the House, so he can say sorry to her afterwards.

Lynne Featherstone: Ofsted gave three stars to Haringey just before the tragic news of the baby P case; the rating was dropped to just one star on a further inspection. The same goes for Basildon hospital foundation trust, although how it got that rating we do not know, because the Care Quality Commission then dropped it. May we have a debate in the House on how to inspect the inspectors?

Philip Davies: Can we have a debate on the unintended damage caused by school league tables? League tables give a perverse incentive to schools not to stretch the people at the very top properly or focus sufficiently on those at the very bottom, but instead to concentrate all their resources on the borderline students. Surely schools should be encouraged to allow children to reach their full potential irrespective of their ability.

Julian Lewis: Yesterday, the Prime Minister yet again damaged his serious message on terrorism by insisting on referring to something he always calls "Alky-Ada". Today, he is in trouble again over a botched letter of condolence to a bereaved service family. Given that the armed forces serve the Crown and not politicians, may we have a statement from a Constitutional Affairs Minister, confirming that it would be more appropriate if the Prime Minister kept out of letters of condolence to bereaved service families and this were left, as it traditionally has been left, to the monarch?

Greg Mulholland: I echo the calls of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) for a debate on the Care Quality Commission. Only this week, a report-a secret report on the Eccleshill independent treatment centre-was made public, yet the Care Quality Commission is now saying that this very meticulous and damning report is wrong. I am afraid that the credibility of the CQC is seriously undermined, and with all the cases that we have now heard, we need to debate it.

Harriet Harman: The question of caring for people at home and in residential care is important, so I hope that we can find an opportunity to debate these issues over the next week and the week after that. I will keep under review the question of whether we need a topical debate, and decide at the appropriate time.

Harriet Harman: We are having a debate on EU affairs as soon as business questions are concluded. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is in his place on the Front Bench waiting to start on that. There is also a debate on the Flood and Water Management Bill on Tuesday 15 December. Let me take the opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), who has worked with the Government, local authorities and the emergency services on behalf of the many families in his constituency who have had an absolutely terrible time. Even though they are no longer at the top of the news, we are all thinking of them, as it is cold there and the rain has started again. They are very much not forgotten. We are working to support them.

Chris Bryant: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of European affairs.
	Having spent eight years analysing its innards and obsessing about its own rule book, Europe now needs to focus all its energies on the needs and concerns of its citizens. Next week's Council meetings will do precisely that, with key discussions on jobs and growth, on climate change, on European co-operation to tackle crime, on the enlargement of the Union and on external relations, especially with Iran.
	On the economy, I know some Members, particularly Conservative Members, would like to pretend otherwise, but no country in Europe has escaped the effects of the global economic downturn. Three things, I believe, have become apparent through this extraordinary period. First, every country in Europe has faced the same set of problems because no economy is a hermetically sealed unit. Italy's debt is now 115 per cent. of gross domestic product, while Greece's is 113.4 per cent. and Belgium's is 97.4 per cent. Unemployment across the EU is currently at 9.4 per cent.-its highest level since the recession began. In Latvia and Spain, it is at its highest, at 20.9 and 19.3 per cent. respectively.

Gisela Stuart: When the Minister reads what he said in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), he will find that his comments were another instance of what keeps happening time and again: an example of co-ordinated co-operation between member states is interpreted as an excuse for further integration. The two things are very different, and the fact that we had a concerted financial stimulus is not an excuse to then have Europe-wide financial regulation and everything that flows from that. I shall come back to this point if I am called to speak later. We must not always have this confusion, which is caused by hailing co-operation between nation states as a success in respect of European Union integration.

Chris Bryant: I am not at all sure that my hon. Friend's characterisation of the labour markets across Europe is correct. It is true that sometimes it is more difficult to sack somebody in other parts of Europe, but it is also more difficult to employ somebody-to take somebody on-in other parts of Europe. Our flexible labour market has been an important part of ensuring the strength of the UK economy. It is also interesting that, whereas many people were predicting at the start of this year that we would have 3 million unemployed by the beginning of December, we have not reached that figure. That is because we have both taken concerted action in the UK and worked with countries that are our important trading partners across Europe to try to make sure jobs are protected.

Chris Bryant: No. I defer to nobody on the Conservative Benches on the protection we give and the efforts we make to ensure the long-term sustainability of our defence industry. Indeed, many of my constituents in south Wales work in a variety of firms engaged in different elements of the defence industry, and we seek to protect those important jobs. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we do business only with our American colleagues. Of course, they are very important allies to us, but my experience-having seen British troops fighting alongside Dutch personnel, Italians, Spaniards, Danish personnel, the French, the Germans and those from many other countries-is that our alliances in Europe are significant and important to us.
	I turn now to climate change. I said earlier that no economy can pretend that it is a hermetically sealed unit. The same is of course true of our environment and our climate, which is why we believe the ongoing discussions in Copenhagen are so important. Europe has a leading role to play in limiting the damaging effects of dangerous climate change and in leading global action as the world moves to a low-emission, low-carbon economy. The October European Council made important progress on climate finance, agreeing that developing countries are likely to require financial support amounting to about €100 billion per year by 2020 if they are successfully to mitigate, and adapt to, the effects of climate change. It also agreed that between €22 billion and €50 billion of this overall package should come from public finance.
	The agreement on climate finance demonstrates the EU's continued leadership as a global actor, but we must keep working together to reach a coherent EU position on the key remaining issues. That includes the demonstration of EU readiness to move to a 30 per cent. emissions reduction target if other developed countries offer comparable commitments at Copenhagen. The December European Council, which meets towards the halfway point of the Copenhagen summit, offers the opportunity for European leaders to react positively should commitments from other developed countries warrant such a reaction. It remains vital that the EU continue to show leadership in achieving an ambitious global deal in Copenhagen. There is political momentum towards such a deal, but it needs continued nurturing and encouragement. Any political agreement must be supported with a clear timetable for delivering a full legal treaty as soon as possible. Slow progress is simply not enough if we are to avoid seeing the shadow of climate change darken all other issues on our agenda.
	I had thought that I would have unanimous cross-party support on this issue, but I note that a former shadow Home Secretary has joined the ranks of the Tory deniers, saying that he thinks the science is only 80 per cent. proven. I must say that if I thought there was an 80 per cent. chance of being knocked down when I crossed the road, I would not cross the road. Similarly, the Tory grouping in the European Parliament has broken free: only last week, 18 members of the group, including two Tory MEPs and, most significantly, the hand-picked leader of the group, Michal Kaminski, voted against Tory policy to agree an 80 per cent. cut in emissions by 2050. I see some hang-dog faces on the other side of the House.
	The Council will also be invited to adopt a new five-year strategy document, entitled the "Stockholm programme", setting out our high-level priorities in the field of justice and home affairs. Collaboration on justice and home affairs has already delivered major benefits for the citizens of this country. Since the European arrest warrant came into force in 2004, it has allowed the UK to extradite more than 1,000 fugitives to other member states and brought more than 350 wanted criminals to the UK to face justice, including Hussain Osman, one of those involved in the attempted attacks in London on 21 July 2005. I simply cannot understand why the Conservative party refuses to support the European arrest warrant.

Chris Bryant: I wholeheartedly agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I am glad that he shares the Government's policy on Europe and on how we should proceed on these issues. He is right to say that when British businesses and British citizens do business abroad they should have the same access to justice and a fair deal as citizens of the other member states in Europe. That is the whole point of the internal market, and it is why we strive to maintain it, whereas, sadly, his party wants to dismantle elements of it.

Chris Bryant: Much as I like the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, I do not think that he should sit there listening to Whips and articulating what they have just told him to say.
	As I was saying earlier, we now know that the leader of the Conservative party signs his cheques in invisible ink. His promises are like dew that disappears the moment the sun comes out, and his cast-iron guarantee has been cast aside on the scrap heap. Of course, the Tory Front-Bench team knew that this was coming. That is why Dastardly and Muttley have been busy devising fiendishly clever wacky wheezes for the past couple of years. First off was the ruse to withdraw from the European People's Party; now the Tories find themselves shackled to a bunch of right-wing extremists with dodgy pasts. British business suffers because there is no British representation in the largest group in the European Parliament, and the Tories are completely marginalised in every debate in Europe. That is most cleverly symbolised by the fact that their offices are now in an annexe off the European Parliament.
	The next ruse was to throw a scrap of red meat to the Euro-headbangers. The leader of the Conservative party says that he wants to repatriate powers to the UK, especially in the area of social policy- [ Interruption. ] I think that was a "Hear, hear!" over there. But he knows perfectly well that he would need 13 other countries to agree to holding an intergovernmental conference to consider amending the treaty again. If he managed that, he would need all 27 countries to agree a new deal, and if he managed that-which is almost impossible-he would need to persuade the European Parliament, because it has a new power under the Lisbon treaty to enforce a convention. Let us face it, Muttley has not got many friends in the European Parliament these days. No wonder David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, has said:
	"We do not believe that the Conservatives' new policy to opt out of European social and employment legislation is realistic, as it would require substantial UK concessions in return".
	Now, the latest ruse is to introduce a new Bill that would assert Parliament's sovereignty over EU legislation. I fear that this too will be drafted in invisible ink. Parliament already is sovereign, as anybody who has studied the history of this place knows. It can repeal the European Communities Act 1972, if it wants to. It can leave the Union, but it should not.
	I know that the hon. Member for Rayleigh knows all this, because he has admitted as much on television. All he could say in defence of the so-called sovereignty Bill was that it would
	"send a signal both to the ECJ and the UK Supreme Court".
	I can just see him busily fanning his smoke signals to Strasbourg now, but I suspect this is more of a smokescreen than a smoke signal. No wonder Roger Helmer MEP said
	"what we have is essentially a cosmetic policy".
	It is clear that December's European Council will see Europe's leaders getting on with business and tackling tough issues of importance to people across Europe. It will mark the end of the institutional introspection that has dominated the Union in the past few years, and the beginning of a new era for the EU-an era focused on taking action where co-operation between European states can deliver results, an era of renewed belief in the ability of member states acting collectively to create new opportunities for the people of Europe, and an era in which Europe has a central role in global decision making.
	That is why Britain is right to position itself at the heart of European decision making. It is why we must retain and enhance our ability to influence in Europe, and why we should continue to push for Europe to strengthen its ability to influence globally. Active British engagement in Europe is good for Britain, good for Europe, and has a positive effect globally. That is why this Government are determined that the UK should be leading and shaping European policy, now and in the future.

Mark Francois: I shall begin by dealing with a number of specific issues of European concern. First, Iran: one of the most important matters facing the nations of Europe today, and one that will rightly be discussed at the European Council, is the question of our relations with Iran.
	We are deeply concerned about the Iranian nuclear programme. For more than a year Iran has refused to engage seriously with either the US or the International Atomic Energy Agency, despite the historic offer of engagement from President Obama. Given that the IAEA director recently said:
	"We have effectively reached a dead end"
	on Iran, we are fast approaching a point where decisions about new sanctions will have to be made. Unless Iran changes course dramatically in the coming weeks, Conservatives believe that new UN and EU sanctions should be adopted in the new year as a matter of urgency. Those sanctions should include, at the very least, a total ban on arms sales to Iran, a tough new UN inspection regime, a ban on new investment in Iranian oil and gas, and action against the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The failure to deliver on such pledges is one reason why Iran feels that it can challenge the international community with impunity, since it sees little concrete demonstration of will to prevent it from going down that path. That must change, and we need concerted EU action in that area. The Minister also realised that this is a very important topic, and I hope that when he winds up he will be able to indicate a timetable that the Government envisage for new sanctions against Iran.
	Secondly, Bosnia: the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina remains of extreme concern to us. The country is not making progress. The international community seems not to have a proper strategy and the way forward remains most unclear.
	On Monday, I discussed with the Minister a new stabilisation and association agreement between the EU and Montenegro. I highlighted the fact that although there is a long way to go-and progress to date is certainly imperfect-a way forward into the Euro-Atlantic world is possible to imagine. By contrast, in Bosnia and Herzegovina the road ahead is simply blocked by inaction, and in some cases by the deliberate blocking of urgent constitutional reform. It is hugely disappointing that the SAA that was agreed with Bosnia has led to few real reforms and that important conditions remain unfulfilled.
	There is now a real danger that the progress made since the 1995 Dayton peace accords may be reversed. The international community-in particular, the US and EU member states-must remain vigilant. Plans to replace the office of the High Representative with an EU special representative and to downgrade EUFOR should not be implemented until Bosnia and Herzegovina can function on its own and a genuine process of constitutional reform and the allocation of state and defence property has taken place.
	If agreement can be reached, Bosnia can move forward into a process that could eventually lead to EU membership. The potential gains for the Bosnian people are huge, matched only by the potential costs of failure. It is time for the Bosnian politicians to put the interests of their people above those of sectional interests and allow the state and people to progress.
	Thirdly, Cyprus: we have just celebrated the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, one of the happiest moments in Europe's recent history, yet on the island of Cyprus there is still a divided European capital city. The Minister and I have both visited Cyprus this year, and we would both like to see a settlement achieved. The current set of talks is now over a year old, and some progress has undoubtedly been made. President Christofias and Mr. Talat are meeting regularly and have discussed a range of issues, including the most contentious. There remain reasons to be optimistic that a lasting settlement can be made, but there are some clouds on the horizon.
	Public opinion on both sides shows signs of shifting away from support for reunification. Further, the April election in Cyprus's Turkish community might not produce a leader as committed to reunification as Mr. Talat. Further delay in reaching a settlement could risk missing the current opening in the clouds. We recommend that the Government use the European Council meeting as an opportunity to stress to the Cypriot Government our support for a settlement and the need for both sides to show leadership in order to reach a deal.
	At the forthcoming EU summit, the Government should also continue to support the principle of Turkish membership of the EU. We should be prepared to remind our European partners how damaging it could be if Turkey ever came to believe that there was no prospect of accession to the EU. We should also be prepared to raise with Ankara the need to grasp this opportunity to achieve a lasting settlement in Cyprus, perhaps through its demonstrating some greater flexibility that could be to the ultimate benefit of both Turkish and Greek Cypriots alike.
	Fourthly, the Copenhagen summit begins on Monday. It is of historic importance. It is an opportunity for the world to take bold action to deal with the real danger of climate change, and tackling climate change is rightly at the top of the EU's agenda. Any such successor deal agreed to at Copenhagen must be a rigorous one that binds the world in a common commitment to keep the rise in global temperatures to below 2° C. Any such deal must find an international mechanism to help people in the world's poorest countries protect themselves against future floods and famine, and stop the destruction of the rainforest-the green lungs of the planet. We hope that, with our European partners, we shall obtain such an outcome next week.
	Reference was made to a vote on climate change in the European Parliament last week. For the record, I should like to add that 13 members of the Liberal Democrats' Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe group abstained on the motion, while five members of the socialist group-including a number of Polish MEPs with whom the Labour party is allied-voted against. I think that it is important to hear about the voting records of all sides in this particular debate.

Gisela Stuart: Far be it from me to defend the European Parliament, but that is one of the few matters on which the Brits suggested that we move to qualified majority voting. However, certain other Governments thought that the seats where the European Parliament meets ought to remain decided by unanimity; it is not entirely MEPs' fault.

Kelvin Hopkins: One hears the phrase about bringing Europe closer to its citizens across the whole European Union, yet on the occasions when it is brought closer to its citizens-through referendums in France and Holland, in Sweden on the euro before that, and perhaps in Britain in future-the citizens of Europe tend to take a negative, rather than a positive, view.

Mark Francois: Would that be the same Spain that is not a member of the G20?
	One immediate change brought about by the Lisbon treaty is the establishment of the new presidency of the European Council and the enhanced High Representative. We in this party are pleased that our view that the President of the European Council should be a chairman and not a chief was widely shared in many European capitals. As the Prime Minister was forced to admit, the role of President of the Council has now been redefined.
	It would also be churlish not to express our gratitude to the Foreign Secretary for his decision to champion Tony Blair in his campaign for the presidency. It was strongly our view that the former Prime Minister was exactly the wrong man for the job. Not only would his appointment dramatise the treaty's lack of democratic legitimacy, but to make so ambitious and limelight-hungry a politician the office's formative first occupant-he is even more so than the current Minister for Europe-would have shaped the post as an unconstructive centralising institution.
	In the EU, the front-runner seldom gets the job. By doing everything that he could to make Tony Blair the front-runner, the Foreign Secretary did a great deal to undermine his case. Characterising him as the man who could stop the traffic in Washington and Moscow helpfully crystallised everything that many countries did not want the President to be and implicitly put down the other candidates. The Prime Minister's people skills are obviously rubbing off on the Foreign Secretary.
	We congratulate Baroness Ashton on her appointment. It is interesting that she was the Government's third or even fourth choice for the job-I will return to that in a minute-but we appreciate the appointment of someone able to work across the political divide. Some have criticised her for a lack of experience in foreign policy, but we know that she possesses a keen intelligence, and we are prepared to work with her in the British national interest.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) warned the Government before the summit, however, they should have sought for Britain not the position of President of the Council or High Representative, but a major economic portfolio in the European Commission. Recent events have borne out the wisdom of that warning, as Lord Mandelson belatedly grasped. The whole saga of the appointments to the European Commission and other positions demonstrates this Government's lack of influence in the EU, lack of strategy and disunity.
	The Government received no support for Tony Blair's candidacy from their socialist allies. They were talked into seeking the High Representative position. It is reported that the Prime Minister agreed not because he thought that Britain's interests would thus be best served but because he thought that it might secure better headlines. According to one key figure, there were two groups in the Government: those who made the real-world argument that the UK's interests would be best served by securing a strong economic portfolio to protect the City, and the media managers. It is, sadly, no surprise that this Prime Minister preferred to listen to the media managers. Once again, his preference for short-term personal political calculation has trumped the national interest.
	Many will also find it extraordinary that the Prime Minister of this country was reduced to accepting his third choice of High Representative before he could find someone acceptable to the Party of European Socialists. They will find it even more extraordinary that the First Secretary of State, it is said, conducted his own campaign for the job and that even with his skills he was unsuccessful. As No. 10 was trying to push one set of candidates for the job, it appears that the First Secretary was trying to press another, namely himself. When the Minister winds up, will he tell the House whether the Foreign Office supported Lord Mandelson in his efforts to bow out of this Government for a new berth in Brussels?

Michael Connarty: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is coming across as a smaller and less tanned Simon Cowell from "The X Factor" rather than as a shadow Minister debating the facts of the case. He is discussing personalities and not what has come out of the process. Does he not welcome the fact that the Council has clearly decided to downgrade the presidency to mere chairmanship of a committee, he expressed fears during the debate on Lisbon that a super-powerful President would speak for Europe and take away the power of the Prime Ministers of the European national Parliaments? He cannot have it both ways.

Mark Francois: Labour's denial of a referendum betrayed the British people-that is clear-but it is not unknown for this Government's Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office to be isolated. Another example is the bizarre position that when No. 10 first tried to press for Tony Blair, the Foreign Office agreed, even though the Minister for Europe, notoriously, put together a letter signed by Labour MPs a couple of years ago to try to get Blair to stand down as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour party.
	The FCO was then out of the loop: No. 10 was pressing for Baroness Ashton to become the High Representative, and over in the First Secretary's apartments the phones were buzzing because he was pressing the case for himself. The Foreign Office was isolated not only in Europe, but in Whitehall. Increasingly, the Foreign Secretary feels nervous because, it is reported, the First Secretary of State would like his job. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on that when he winds up the debate later today.
	I promised to give way to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend made the case about the way in which the Foreign Office has been isolated in Whitehall. That was an issue of policy and substance. It is very interesting to note that in an interview published on labourlist.org, the former Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), made it clear that when she was in that position, with the right to attend Cabinet when Europe was discussed, she spent
	"eight months without being invited to discuss Europe at full cabinet meetings and never being invited at all to political cabinet meetings."
	It seems to me that having a Europe Minister who is never invited to discuss Europe at Cabinet does not say much for the seriousness of any Foreign Office influence within this Government.

Mark Francois: I am grateful for those comments-particularly the last one. I was kind enough to let the right hon. Gentleman intervene, so if he were to drop a line to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) I would be indebted unto him for that.
	Returning to the First Secretary of State and the business of appointments, I think that the First Secretary realised, after he did not get the High Representative's job, that a further blunder had been made. He wrote in the  Financial Times-a week after my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks had written in that publication-that
	"the distribution of the big economic portfolios in the next European Commission"
	is
	"critically important...The men and women that José Manuel Barroso, Commission president, appoints to key dossiers such as competition, the internal market and trade will carry much weight in defining the direction of EU policy.
	We know what followed. Against this Government's belated objections, Michel Barnier was appointed as the Internal Market Commissioner. Against this Government's further objections, his portfolio includes financial services. Both the Prime Minister and the President of France had a number of conversations with Mr. Barroso about that portfolio, and it is clear that the Commission President took a great deal more notice of his conversations with the French President than he did of those with our Prime Minister. The French President now says that
	"the English are big losers in this affair"
	and that
	"French ideas for regulation are triumphing in Europe".
	It is clear that this Government have been comprehensively outmanoeuvred by the French, and that this country is now left playing catch-up.
	That leads us on to the financial services industry and its relations with the EU. The financial services industry is a vital national economic interest, and to further it we need to learn the lessons from the crisis and improve the global co-ordination of supervision and regulation. However, as Mervyn King said,
	"banks are global in life, but national in death".
	Bank failures can have fiscal consequences-something that we are only too familiar with in the United Kingdom. That means not only that European co-operation is essential for the promotion of financial stability, but that we must safeguard taxpayers' interests when it comes to decisions that the new European authorities make. That must remain the clearest of red lines.
	Yesterday's ECOFIN conclusions seemed to be clear:
	"decisions taken by the ESAs"
	-European Supervisory authorities-
	"should not impinge in any way on the fiscal responsibilities of the member states."
	The Chancellor claims now to have secured his red line, but that represents staggering complacency when we look beyond the press release and into the detail. The new supervisory bodies can make decisions that have a fiscal impact either in a crisis or as a consequence of binding mediation. However, to overturn such decisions, the UK will need to secure the support of a majority of member states under qualified majority voting. We have no veto over those decisions, and as one EU official put it:
	"The real concession is that burden of proof will rest with Britain".
	That makes it very clear that the real loser from yesterday is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the British taxpayer.
	Sadly, that complacency is indicative of the Government's broader approach. We have seen it before over the alternative investment fund managers directive and the appointment of the Internal Market Commissioner.

Mark Francois: In a moment.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), in his memorable time as Minister for Europe, famously said that the charter would have no more legal weight than  T he Beano. The former Prime Minister Tony Blair told this House in 2007 that it was
	"absolutely clear that we have an opt-out from both the charter and judicial and home affairs".-[ Official Report, 25 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 37.]
	The Government were subsequently forced to admit that they had obtained not an opt-out but a clarification, and that admission was made in exchanges with the European Scrutiny Committee, as I recall. So we ought to expect the Government's support on this point, which is about establishing in reality what the Government wrongly claimed to have obtained in the first place. On that point, I give way to the Minister.

Mark Francois: The passerelles require unanimity, but as we argued when we debated the Lisbon treaty, passerelles should be enacted only on the basis of primary legislation in this Parliament. The Government did not accept that; as I recall, they left things so that passerelles could be enacted through what would effectively be a statutory instrument, after a debate of only 90 minutes.

Mark Francois: It is, but it is not primary legislation; that is the difference-allow me to correct the Minister on that point. Allow me also to correct him on the charter of fundamental rights, which I was just discussing. The Czechs asked for an opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights. They were told that the Council gave them a political decision to achieve that and they were then told that that could be attached to a future accession treaty as a protocol, which would give the opt-out full legal weight in international law. There is already a precedent for that methodology, and we would seek to follow it; if it can be offered to the Czechs, it can be offered to us.

Michael Connarty: Unfortunately, there are no other Select Committee Chairmen here, but if there were, they could confirm that the Prime Minister gave a categorical assurance to the Liaison Committee that passerelles would be enacted only following a decision on the Floor of the House. In fact, only on the basis of a positive resolution in this House and the House of Lords would passerelles be enacted, and would a veto be given away in favour of qualified majority voting. Our Government have given a guarantee that they would not vote on a passerelle until such a positive resolution was carried in both Houses.

Mark Francois: I have given way quite a few times. I give way to my hon. Friend, who I believe may know a little about the issue.

William Cash: The sovereignty Act that we are proposing also deals with the passerelle question. I do not want to put my hon. Friend directly on the spot, because this is a matter for the leader of our party as well as for the party as a whole, but does he not tend to agree with me-I urge him to agree with me very much-that such a sovereignty Bill would have to be totally comprehensive to ensure that we reaffirmed the sovereignty of this Parliament? We would need to guarantee that, as with other supremacy of Parliament amendments put forward by me-amendments that have already been endorsed by our leadership-any future changes that we may wish to make in relation to European legislation would be carried through.

Michael Connarty: I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate. Unfortunately, when the financial regulations were being debated I was leading the European Scrutiny Committee on a pre-presidency visit to Madrid; I would like to have spoken during those debates. The Chair of the Treasury Committee was also elsewhere with his Committee, and he might have made a vital contribution.
	The House wishes to pass a motion stating that it has considered the matter of European affairs. I hope it will agree that such consideration would not be complete if we did not give consideration to the process of parliamentary scrutiny. I shall come to that issue, in my capacity not only as Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee but as one who has an interest in the effect of the Lisbon treaty. I described that treaty as a tipping point, and I stand by that. It has changed the geography and processes of not only what will happen in Brussels but, I hope, what will happen in this House and elsewhere.
	First, I should like to raise a few matters of substance to underscore the fact that we need changes to the structures to assist effective scrutiny. I turn to what I think are agreed to be the three new supervisory or watchdog committees on insurance, banking and the securities market in Europe. Those who, like me, have followed the process for many years will see that they are just beefed-up Lamfalussy committees. There was already the Lamfalussy supervision process, which proved inadequate, just as the supervision and regulation in this country was inadequate for dealing with the inventiveness and gambling of the banking, insurance and derivatives markets that brought this and many other countries to the serious position they are in, with massive public debt and taxpayers owning many of the banks.
	For some reason, we have been unable to prevent banks from doing certain things; I noticed that Royal Bank of Scotland has put aside £940 million for bonuses, yet it has just been revealed that it might be exposed to the tune of £2 billion to the Dubai debacle; I think that the total is £5 billion among British banks, even with the latest scrutiny process.
	The agreement on a European systemic risk board has not been mentioned. That would be a gathering of all the EU's 27 central bankers to try to do something consistently across Europe. I do not wish to score points about the weakness of Government or the failures of the regulatory authorities at our own level, but we should welcome that board. Together with the Americans, with the gambling nature of their banking, insurance and derivatives markets, we almost brought down the world's economies to the same degree as happened during the great depression.
	I know that Opposition Members would not say this, but, as was mentioned in debates before the Council last November, without our Prime Minister leading Europe and giving a clear lead to the President of the United States, we would have ended up in a massive depression. It appears to me that allowing some other people a say and oversight in respect of the behaviour of our banking, insurance and derivatives markets is not very much to give up from London.
	The European Scrutiny Committee will retain-and, I hope, use more and more-the right to call for an opinion from a Select Committee that specialises in another area of policy. We called for an opinion from the Treasury Committee, and that led to its inquiry and, I hope, fed some common sense into the debate on Tuesday.
	I want to mention some matters that may seem minor but that are important to our constituents. If most of them read this debate up until this point, they would wonder whether Front Benchers live in the same world as they do. It was point scoring and personalising-more like "The X Factor" than a serious debate about what affects people's lives. For example, in 2005 the European Commission ruled that it was illegal for European citizens not to be paid the same wages and for people in the shipping industry in my area of Scotland not to be given the minimum wage. That is an important matter that was debated yesterday in relation to an amendment to the Equality Bill. However, it is still possible to use non-EU citizens, and such people are being paid £1.27 to sail boats between the islands and the mainland of Scotland. The Commission could ban that for people in the EU so that it would not happen to people who came from the A8 accession countries to work in the offshore industries. My constituents would welcome that. The TUC and the Scottish TUC are campaigning strongly to have such a provision extended to everyone through the Race Relations Act 1976.  [ Interruption. ] I have just been told that there is a 15-minute time limit on speeches. That is not necessarily welcome, but useful to know.
	Another apparently minor matter is the use of the European globalisation fund, which I have raised with the Scotland Secretary. That has become a fund into which people from different countries are dipping to mitigate the effects of recession, not necessarily the effects of the globalisation process. In the European Scrutiny Committee, we have insisted that such instances be reported to the House, in what we call an "A" brief, whenever they occur, because they are matters of interest. Some have been very serious. For example, in the automotive industry, when Saab lost more than 4,000 jobs Sweden asked for a contribution from the fund. Ireland got a substantial sum of money when Dell decided to pull out one of its factories. It was remarkable to find that the Netherlands got about £1 million following 570 redundancies in a construction company. Given the massive loss of employment in this country, if that is what the money is available for, we should be asking for it. Every time these funds are paid out, there is a net contribution from the UK. We should be similarly asking for funds, but for some reason the Government are not doing so. I have particularly made the point that we are losing to Ireland 500 jobs at Bausch and Lomb, which makes contact lenses. We hear that Ireland is getting money, while we are losing jobs. There is something wrong with that, and we should look at it seriously.
	Let me turn to matters in the Committee's remit that we have been raising with the Government. First, I want to talk about enlargement. Most recently, that has centred on learning the lessons of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, both of which, in the estimation not only of our Committee but of the Commission, still have an enormous amount of work to do in creating an independent judiciary and a system of governance that can and will tackle corruption and organised crime. We said at the time that those countries were allowed in too early, and they have been backsliding since. We have recently expressed to the Government a firm view about Croatia, which is next in line unless it is over-leaped by Iceland, which is looking for a rescue package for its financial crash. We say that Croatia must demonstrate actual conditionality. In other words, before accession, it must have a strong track record of effective implementation of the necessary machinery and success in tackling the ills that continue to blight it-that is, a fully functioning legal system and a track record of tackling corruption at the highest level.

Keith Vaz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing a sober approach to the debate without references to "Guys and Dolls", "Wacky Races", or any other such films-wonderful though they are, of course. Has his Committee considered the possibility of a formal twinning arrangement between existing member states and applicant countries or those that are new entrants to the EU? One of the problems is that once they join, we leave them very much on their own, but they need that kind of support. We welcomed Romania and Bulgaria entering, although I take his point about the timetable- but when such countries join they need additional help.

Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend-I regard him as a friend-has a very balanced view about these matters and many others that we share an interest in. I think we have a potential for earlier intervention that may be denied us if some of our Committee's requests are not listened to by the Government.
	We are concerned about what is happening post-Lisbon; I am sure that Opposition Front Benchers will say, "We told you so." The main problem is that the Lisbon treaty creates a whole new concept of non-legislative Acts. Those need to be properly scrutinised. They will be decisions of the Council rather than legislative Acts. Unfortunately, Lisbon does not refer to their having to be scrutinised in any of the processes. We are requesting the policy papers that lead to the common foreign and security policy, which has been a concern of many Members, and the European security and defence policy, which will now not be legislative Acts. We are asking for a change in our Standing Orders specifically to say that legislative Acts and non-legislative Acts will be referred to our Committee for the scrutiny process.
	Another aspect that we are concerned about is the new European External Action Service, which will become an acronym of some kind and we will not remember what it means two months from now. Again, that was required on the basis of a Council decision, and it needs to be properly scrutinised. There are major uncertainties about the External Action Service. Will it be a Commission entity, or will it sit somewhere indeterminate between Council references and Commission references? We have to get that cleared up. What will its external delegations do? Presumably they will promulgate the new common security and defence policy, but under which supervision method, at European level and at national Parliament level?
	There has always been a mystery about this. A previous Defence Secretary and Europe Minister has defended the right of the Government not to give our Committee access to these papers on the ground that what is happening in foreign policy and defence is far too sensitive for Parliament to know about, which is of course ridiculous. Perhaps I am paraphrasing what the former Minister said, but I am certainly quite clear about what he meant.  [Interruption.] Add the two ministerial positions together to work out which former Minister it was-that person held both. I am not into personalities, I am much more into the substance of what is said.
	Will the new European External Action Service missions be responsible for delivering EU aid, and how will that cut across the role of the Department for International Development and the interest of national Parliaments? All that must be brought to us for proper scrutiny before the Council's decision is reached, and I hope that the Government will take those matters on board in the forthcoming negotiations and discussions about what we should do to our Standing Orders.
	There is also the problem of derogations from the eight-week period for parliamentary scrutiny. The Lisbon treaty extended that from six weeks, but it was then agreed that if there were exceptional circumstances, Parliaments would not be given those eight weeks. Those exceptional circumstances will not be available to us to debate, because the decision will be taken in the Council. It will decide, "This is an exceptional matter. We are not going to give the Parliaments the eight weeks we promised to scrutinise this process". That is very dangerous, and I should like an assurance from the Minister and the Government that they will not allow that to happen and will veto any proposal to take away this Parliament's power to have eight weeks to scrutinise anything coming from the Council.

Edward Davey: First, I apologise to the House for the fact that I will not be here for the winding-up speeches.
	I hope that this will not be the last European affairs debate before the election, because it is important that we debate European issues as much as possible. I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) that we need to improve the scrutiny of European matters in the House, so I welcome these debates. I actually believe that we should have a special Question Time for European affairs, which can get lost in Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions. Nowadays European affairs do not relate simply to the FCO, so it is important that we have more frequent chances to question Ministers on them on the Floor of the House.
	This is a significant moment for the European Union, with the Lisbon treaty coming into force. It enables the EU to put institutional wranglings behind it and deal with issues of substance. This month we will see that it is able to lead at the Copenhagen summit. The Minister touched on that in some detail, and I strongly agree with his remarks. The Lisbon treaty and the developments in the EU over a period of years have enabled it to show strong leadership, which we hope will enable at least a political agreement to be reached at Copenhagen. Leadership in the global economy is also important, and the EU can provide both by agreeing among the 27 member states and through some of those member states going to meetings such as the G20. It is now more able to show the leadership that the world needs.
	This is also a significant time for European policy within British politics. One party, the Conservative party, will probably have the most anti-European general election manifesto of any party since the Labour party in 1983, when it wanted to pull out of the EU: it could not get more anti-European than that. It appears that there will be a debate at the coming election about the future of Britain in Europe, not least because of the position that the Conservative party has taken.
	I wish to deal first with the European dimension and the issues of substance at the European Council in recent times.

Edward Davey: The House will not be surprised to know that I do not know the full CV of the civil servant Jonathan Faull, but the issue-at least, this seems to concern other Conservative Members-is surely whether the British interest will be heard. Clearly, Jonathan Faull is a British civil servant.
	The other reason why I think people are getting a little bit overheated over Michel Barnier is that one person does not decide the laws in Europe. The Commission itself contains checks and balances; Commissioners have to agree before directives are put forward. The directives then have to go through the Council and the Parliament. With the co-decision process and with Brits chairing the two key parliamentary committees, I think we can be relatively reassured. If people are in any doubt about the power of the Parliament, I refer them to the draft directive on hedge funds-the alternative investment fund managers directive-which has understandably caused a lot of consternation.
	The draft directive went to the European Parliament, and the economic and monetary affairs committee, which is chaired by a Liberal Democrat MEP, commissioned, and in recent weeks published, a damning report on it, saying that the impact assessment that the Commission put forward was unacceptable. My colleague Sharon Bowles is leading the fight to ensure that the directive is not passed in its current form. That is the way we do business in this House, and the way people in the European Parliament do business-giving proper scrutiny to draft legislation. I again implore people not simply to listen to some of the British press when they are screeching, but to look at the actual facts. There are checks and balances, and they are working.
	I shall conclude my remarks on that issue by talking about Michel Barnier. I do not think it does the British interest any service if we dismiss someone who actually has quite a good track record, just because he is French; that really would be extremely narrow-minded. I think that we ought to be getting used to French politicians, particularly President Sarkozy, grandstanding, and we should look at the reality of what happens afterwards, which amounts to much less than the rhetoric that sometimes comes out of the Elysée palace. I am not saying that we should not be on our guard, but there are checks and balances in the system that prevent one person from railroading legislation that would undermine our interests.

Mark Harper: Perhaps I could refer back to a point I raised earlier. To be fair, the hon. Gentleman has been very clear on the role of the nationality of the individuals involved, as was the Minister. However, the hon. Gentleman has now mentioned national leaders grandstanding. The Prime Minister said that Baroness Ashton's appointment as High Representative would give Britain a powerful voice within the Council and the Commission and ensure that Britain's voice was heard. Both the hon. Gentleman and the Minister have confirmed in this debate that the appointment will do no such thing, because Baroness Ashton represents not Britain, but the Commission and the Council; she speaks not for Britain, but for them. The hon. Gentleman and the Minister have been honest about that, but the Prime Minister has not.

Edward Davey: I do not think I am here to defend statements by the Prime Minister, and I am certainly not going to do so. My slight retort to the hon. Gentleman is that although Commissioners, the High Representative and the president of the Council represent the European Union-that is their job as part of the community, and that esprit is supposed still to apply-and although they come from certain traditions and political cultures, those are helpful in the way they are likely to their jobs.
	I should like briefly to touch on some external relations points, which both the Minister and the hon. Member for Rayleigh rightly mentioned, and on which I think that there is cross-party agreement-those concerning Bosnia, Iran and Cyprus. I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman about Bosnia. The Liberal Democrats are increasingly concerned about what is happening in Bosnia, and although we understand the Government's approach, we are not quite convinced that it is strong enough. The constitutional attempts, through Butmir, are not bearing much fruit. I think that is partly because the office of the High Representative there is going to be dismantled. Politicians in Republika Srpska, particularly in Dodik, think that they are going to get away with championing new Serb nationalism, acting as a latter-day Milosevic. We have to send a very clear signal that the European Union will not allow that to happen. It is important that Members on both sides of the House get the EU to steel itself to objecting to that. We may need to look again at the idea of the abolition of the Office of the High Representative because of the lack of progress.
	What the Minister said about Iran was interesting. It seems as if the British Government are now preparing to argue within the European Union that now is the time for sanctions. If that is the case, it is a serious new development. I am not suggesting that it might be the wrong step, given the announcement by President Ahmadinejad that Iran wants to build 10 new nuclear processing facilities-that is alarming-but some of the experts, including even people connected to the International Atomic Energy Agency, have suggested that Iran has no ability to build those facilities and that the announcement was totally rhetorical. Therefore, in dealing with Iran, we have to know the difference between reality and rhetoric. That is extremely important.
	I hope there is still some room and some track left for taking the diplomatic engagement route. As I said during the Queen's Speech debate, the negotiations on where uranium needs to be enriched and processed for the test reactor in Tehran could still bear fruit. If, despite everything, we can still bring Iran to the negotiating table, it would be a better route. I accept that we are running out of road, but it may well be that one last attempt before sanctions are tried is the right approach.
	I do not have much to add to what the Minister and the hon. Member for Rayleigh said about Cyprus. All parties wish Presidents Christofias and Talat all the best, and I strongly hope that the British Government and the EU are doing all they can to enable, in the rather narrow window of opportunity that may be left to us, a historic agreement to be reached.
	As for the British dimension of European affairs and how it affects policy, I am afraid the Government increasingly have a rather mixed record. I accept that they have done some fantastic things. Unlike the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats were pleased when they got rid of the British opt-out from the social chapter, and they have been successful in changing their relationships with other European Governments, but I do not think they have managed to change the terms of trade of the debate in this country. I do not level this comment at the Minister, but some of his colleagues have been unwilling to engage in the real debate and put the pro-European case. In two of his most recent speeches, the Foreign Secretary has begun to do that, but he made some silly remarks about stopping the traffic in connection with the President of the European Council. The poor handling of the appointment of the High Representative, about which the hon. Member for Rayleigh spent some time talking, did not do us much credit either. The Government have not exactly covered themselves in glory.
	The Conservatives have asked about our position on the referendum, and I can tell the hon. Member for Rayleigh that the headline on the BBC website is not accurate. If he looks at the comments made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), they do not bear out that headline. The spokesman, whom the hon. Gentleman quoted out of context, made it clear that our position remains the same. I hope that that reassures him.
	I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman needs help defining "cast-iron". Certainly, the dictionaries that I have consulted suggest that it is a guarantee that can be trusted completely, and is rigid, strong and unyielding. It is not subject to change or exception. I am afraid that the "cast-iron guarantee" given by the Conservative leader has ignored those definitions.

Edward Davey: Well, there was no definition of "cast- iron" in that, nor did it answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East. The Conservatives know that they have a real problem here. They have reneged on their cast-iron guarantee and they know that their party is split down the middle-

Edward Davey: The Minister makes a fair point. We would be subjugated to the rules of the European Union if the Conservatives were to try to push that policy in the direction that is suggested.
	The third element of the new Conservative European policy is the repatriation of powers, and the Conservatives have talked about three such powers. The first relates to the charter of fundamental rights. As I understand it, the Lisbon treaty has a protocol on that and it was debated for many hours on the Floor of the House. After those debates, it was clear that the charter relates to EU institutions, not to the making of law in this House. It is therefore bizarre that the Conservatives want to repatriate the charter of fundamental rights to Britain, because it applies to the EU institutions. That is a weird policy.
	The second power relates to employment, and we all know that the Conservatives wanted to opt out of the social chapter. The question is what chance they have of making that policy stick. The Minister eloquently explained how that would need several countries to have an intergovernmental conference and then unanimity to give Britain an opt-out. If the Conservatives are serious about pursuing that in government, they would not only undermine British interests, but be looking backwards, and they would be unable to influence future policy in the European Union. It would be highly damaging to British interests.
	The third area in which the Conservatives wish to repatriate powers is in respect of the whole justice and home affairs agenda, including criminal law. We should take that seriously, because they might be able to do it. The Lisbon treaty subjects all aspects of justice and home affairs to an opt-in. Over the next five years, starting from 1 December this year, the clock will be ticking. After five years, everything in that sphere will become an EU-wide competence and the Government would have to decide whether they wanted to opt in or not. Any future Government would therefore have the power to exclude us from all justice and home affairs matters, but that is not just for five years. Over the next few years, as aspects of the European justice and home affairs legislation are amended-as it certainly will be before the five-year cut-off point-the Government will be able to decide on those specific aspects whether to opt in or not.
	That might sound like a technical point, but let us think about what it means in practice. The European arrest warrant, about which we talked earlier, is likely to be amended in the next two years because there have been imperfections and it has not worked perfectly. I am sure that that will have to happen. The next Government will therefore have to take a decision when the amendments are proposed to opt in to, or out of, the EAW.
	We have heard from Conservatives in the European Parliament and the House that they are fundamentally against the EAW. We have heard from the shadow Home Secretary that he is minded to be against it, and when the leader of the Conservative party was interviewed on the "Andrew Marr Show", he said that he was very much against it too. He told Andrew Marr:
	"There are many things in the Lisbon treaty-giving more power over home affairs and justice-that we don't think is right."
	Given that the Conservative policy is to repatriate powers on those areas- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rayleigh says that he did not say anything about the EAW, but it is slap bang in the middle of the justice and home affairs agenda. If he wants to tell the House what the Conservative position will be on the EAW and whether it will opt back in when given the chance, it would be very helpful. I am sure that Conservative Back Benchers and Conservatives in the European Parliament, who voted against the EAW and believe that it infringes our sovereignty, would be interested to hear about that position. I would welcome it too, because it would move the Conservative party towards a pro-European position and in a sensible direction for the conduct of justice and home affairs. However, I doubt that we will get an answer, because the hon. Gentleman and his party want to sit on the fence.
	It is not just about the EAW; it is about Europol and Eurojust and all the other things that, as I said in an intervention, are bringing serious criminals to justice. We will be interested to hear whether the hon. Gentleman has an answer to that.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is talking about an Act of Parliament, part of which covered was the EAW. If he reads the proceedings of the House, he will see that my colleagues and I were very much in favour of the EAW, but we were against other parts of the legislation. We made that clear in the proceedings. We are very different from him and his party because he opposed the EAW. The Conservatives voted against it in the House and the European Parliament, and not because of one or two imperfections; they were against it in principle, just as the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) is in principle against justice and home affairs being taken at the European level. They have a lot of explaining to do. Between now and polling day, we will push them to make themselves clear to the British people: will they give British people the protection of the EAW, Europol and Eurojust?

Robert Goodwill: The hon. Gentleman talks about serious crime, but is he not aware that in cases such as the one a couple years ago in which some British people were arrested in Greece for spotting aeroplanes, British citizens might be extradited to countries with legal systems in which we have less confidence than we have in our own? The crimes might not be serious; they could be more spurious and difficult-to-understand cases.

Keith Vaz: I am happy to confirm that, although I think that all the Commissioners whom we have sent to the European Union, Conservative and Labour, have been excellent. We have done very well in the choice of people whom we have sent.
	I also want to pay tribute to the Minister for Europe for the work that he has done. Reference has been made to the large number of Ministers for Europe that we have had-I was one of them-but I cannot think of anyone better prepared for the job than him. He has a passion for Europe, he has an intelligence and an understanding, and I think that he will do an absolutely terrific job. I also hope that he stays in the job for as long as I did, which was about two years.
	I am also pleased that my next-door neighbour in Leicester, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), has been promoted to become the Minister for Europe's Parliamentary Private Secretary. He has had a very distinguished career in Leicester. In fact, he probably knows more about Europe-I have to say this-than the Minister or me. Before either of us entered the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South was a member of the Committee of the Regions. The Minister has thus chosen an able person to assist him as part of his team. I am sure that they will do very well in Europe.
	I am with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton on the issue of the referendum. I think it is important for us to be in a position in which the British people can once and for all deal with the myths put about by the Eurosceptics. I am quite certain that if a referendum comes-it is not, of course, Labour party policy-we will find that the leader of the Conservative party and the shadow Minister for Europe will be on the side of the angels and will support the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and others in saying that Britain should remain in the European Union. That is why it is important to put it on the line and give people the opportunity to have those discussions.
	The European Council meeting next week will be an important one and it is obviously going to consider the extremely important issue of climate change. I am not going to dwell, in the few minutes I have available, on that issue because I know other Members will cover it. I want to talk about one or two other issues that I hope will be raised, and I hope that the Minister will respond to explain current Government thinking when he concludes the debate.
	When the Minister gave his opening speech, I raised with him the issue of the Lisbon agenda. The Lisbon agenda is a very important agreement among European colleagues. It is not, of course, the same as the Lisbon treaty, which is also important, and this predates that treaty. There must be something about Lisbon to make it the place where all the important decisions about Europe are taken. The importance of the Lisbon agenda is that it set down for the first time a set of economic benchmarks that it was hoped European countries would try to achieve.
	As those involved in European affairs will know, there are often meetings, summits and other things of that kind and there is often general good will about all the initiatives that are going to be followed, but the importance of the Lisbon agenda is that it set those benchmarks down-on employment, on growth and on how the economies of various EU countries should work together. I hope that we will not lose the opportunity to ascertain whether all the 27 countries have met those benchmarks set 10 years ago. If not, we must ensure that there is a corrective mechanism to enable them to meet them. I know that the current global economic crisis will have had an effect on the benchmarks that were set 10 years ago, because the crisis was not envisaged, but I still think it important for British Ministers to hold themselves, the Government and colleagues to account as to whether those benchmarks have been met.
	I am glad that the Government remain committed to the accession of Turkey in the future-in the near future-and I am also pleased that the Opposition are fully supportive of it. I do not think that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned Turkish accession- [Interruption.] Perhaps he did while I was out of the Chamber. I believe that-apart, obviously, from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)-there is all-party unity among Members in the House at the moment in favour of Turkey joining the European Union. It is important that we do not merely say these things. We should use our weight to ensure that that happens, precisely as we did when we ensured that Poland and other east European countries entered when they did. Had it not been for the work of Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister and Robin Cook, the then Foreign Secretary, I do not believe that we would have seen the enlargement of the EU by that number of countries at that particular time. We should put our weight behind getting Turkey in as soon as possible. That also applies to Croatia.
	It is important not to leave countries to fend for themselves when they enter the EU. Romania and Bulgaria have been mentioned. I think that Romania's accession has been a success, as has that of the other eastern European countries. I do not think we should condemn Bulgaria; I think that we should work with it to ensure that it overcomes its difficulties. Part of the problem is that when new countries enter the European Union, they are delighted and there is national euphoria, and then Brussels moves to the next set of priorities. Support is extremely important if we are to ensure that the EU succeeds and member states feel that they are welcome. We want member states to be part of a first-class Europe with no second-class countries, moving together in what I hope will be a united way.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is a frequent visitor to debates on these issues. I think he has participated in almost all the European affairs debates over the past 10 years or so; he has certainly participated in the more recent ones.
	I do not favour a federal Europe, and nor do the Government. We must have a Europe of nation states. Where there is a method of co-operating beyond the strict rules, we should adopt it. One example is the justice and home affairs agenda. We can opt in or opt out when we wish to do so, and we can ensure that we work with European partners to deal with immigration issues.
	I have mentioned my visit to the "jungle camp" in Calais with members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. We went to the camp a week before the French moved in and broke it up; I do not know whether that had anything to do with the Committee's visit. We met a large number of young men between the ages of 15 and 40 who had travelled to Calais all the way from Afghanistan and Iraq. They had passed through Austria and Romania, some had been to Spain and some had gone through Germany, but they had all ended up at the tip of the continent, and all that they wanted to do was come to London and live in the United Kingdom. No matter what they were offered, that was what they wanted to do. They formed themselves into a "jungle camp" and refused all the offers from the French to allow them to seek asylum, because they wanted to cross the channel and come to the United Kingdom.
	I kept saying to those young men, "But you have come all the way from Afghanistan and Iraq. Surely there is some other European country where you might like to stop in order to claim asylum." If there is an area in which we need better co-operation, it is the justice and home affairs agenda, and immigration in particular. Our European partners are simply not abiding by their responsibilities and obligations. When people pass through their countries, they should deal with the problem.

Malcolm Moss: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who served for a time-perhaps it was too short a time-with distinction as Minister for Europe and is now serving with distinction as Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. His kind comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) are welcome and on the record. The right hon. Gentleman's speaking about human trafficking in the way he did underlined yet again that when Europe and its nations need to come together to address a key problem, they fail. Human trafficking is just another example of where we need to be more pragmatic in our approach, in sharing the issues and in dealing with them in a unified way.
	I share the disappointment of my Front-Bench team that the European Court of Auditors has refused to sign off the EU's budget for the 15th time in a row, owing to fraud and mismanagement in the budget. It is very unfortunate that the EU, with the enormous powers that it yields and a gargantuan budget to match, continually faces such serious allegations from its own auditors. I wish to take this opportunity to highlight some of the nonsense that has been recorded regarding projects funded by the EU in recent years.
	My first example took place under the umbrella of the common agricultural policy, when €173,000 was given to the luxury golf resort called the Monte de Quinta Club in the Algarve in Portugal. According to the resort's website, guests can choose
	"the comfort of a villa with garden and private pool, or be dazzled by deluxe suites."
	It would be interesting to know whether that appropriation has been challenged and the money reclaimed. My second example is that of a Swedish farmer who received a subsidy, albeit small, of €200 through the EU's single farm payment scheme for land on which he grew cannabis; we are told that he had filled in all the required forms correctly. Last, but certainly not least, is the example of the €4 million subsidy given in 2002 to seven Italian orange farmers who failed to grow a single orange between them.
	It is not just the EU's agricultural policy that is not fit for purpose; another key area of waste is the EU's structural and cohesion funds-its second largest spending area, representing almost a third of the budget. The European Court of Auditors concluded in its report on the 2008 budget that the structural and cohesion funds remain problematic and are
	"the area most affected by errors".
	Worryingly, the Court estimated that at least 11 per cent. of the total amount paid out in grants from those funds should not have been paid out in the first place.
	The structural and cohesion funds are intended to narrow the economic disparities among member states, and key recipients included Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece after they joined the EU in the 1970s and 1980s. Following the eastern enlargement in 2004 and 2007, most of the recipients of the funds are now central and eastern European states. Despite the €45 billion poured into the funds from member states every year, the OECD has not found any conclusive evidence that the funds have had a positive impact on the economies of the states receiving them. In fact, an OECD report from September 2007 stated that
	"regional disparities are not falling, or at best declining very slowly".
	It calculated that at the current rate of convergence it would take 170 years just to halve the economic disparities between different regions in the EU. A major reason for the extraordinary levels of waste and mismanagement is the sheer size and complexity of the budget. As the EU's auditors pointed out in their recent report, in many situations the errors are a consequence of too complex rules and regulations.
	There are several ways in which the budget can be improved. At the moment, EU rules state that allocated funds must be paid out within two years or the money will be cancelled. That, of course, encourages member states to spend the money as quickly as possible without due scrutiny or responsibility. Bringing the structural and cohesion funds under national control would, in our opinion, simplify the EU budget and inject national accountability, greater transparency and more involvement by national Parliaments. It would, we believe, reduce waste and mismanagement and establish a better link between performance and receipt of subsidies.

Kelvin Hopkins: I have suggested on many occasions that the European budget ought to be distributed according to need, with the rich countries paying proportionately and the poorer countries drawing proportionately, according to their standards of living. Paying directly to Governments would be necessary as part of that. It seems to me that we have agreement on these matters.

Malcolm Moss: I am most grateful for confirmation from the hon. Gentleman that we are moving in the right direction.
	One of Tony Blair's conditions for giving up parts of Britain's rebate was that the Commission should conduct a wide-ranging review of EU spending. I am disappointed that the deadline for the review at the end of 2009 is unlikely to be met. However, a leaked draft paper on the budget review suggests that the Commission, once it has got its act together, will put forward several worthy proposals for reform. They will include some proposals that would not serve Britain's best interest, but I welcome the proposals significantly to reduce the amount of money spent on agriculture and to reform the structural and cohesion funds.
	As far back as 2003, the then Prime Minister wrote in  The Times that the structural and cohesion funds should be returned to the control of the member states. Will the Government push for that in the EU's next budget negotiations; or is the Prime Minister-and is the Minister-prepared to give up this pledge just as his predecessor gave up part of our rebate in return for nothing?
	The UK is now the second biggest net contributor to the EU budget according to Treasury figures. We pay almost £10 billion a year into the EU's budget for 2007 to 2013 and get back about £5.2 billion. Crucially, the UK's net contribution will rise from £4.1 billion in 2009-10 to £6.4 billion in 2011-12. That is after the European Parliament voted in October to increase Britain's payments by £5 million a day, against the advice of the European Commission and the European Council.
	Moreover, the UK is also the EU member that receives the least back from the budget per head. According to figures from Open Europe, we receive only €770 per head in EU funding, which is lower than any other member state. It is half as much as France, which receives €1,480, and a quarter as much as Ireland, which receives €3,090. Perversely, the richest country in the EU-Luxembourg-gets more than €22,000 per capita because it benefits from hosting several EU agencies.

Malcolm Moss: I absolutely agree. However, on a recent Foreign Affairs Committee visit to Paris, Committee members met a junior from the French agricultural ministry and were left in no doubt that the French would give up the CAP most unwillingly. To them, it is not just about the money going into agriculture and directly to their farmers; it is about a whole policy of maintaining populations in the countryside. We will have great problems addressing this issue, given the intransigence of politicians in France.
	On the recent appointment of Baroness Ashton as the EU's High Representative on foreign affairs, although I, like many of my colleagues, did not agree with the creation of that post in the first instance, or with that of EU President, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Baroness on her promotion. I also reiterate the shadow Europe Minister's assertion that a future Conservative Government will look forward to working with her.
	During the shenanigans surrounding the Lisbon treaty appointments, while the Prime Minister was busy lobbying for Tony Blair to become the new President and while the Foreign and Business Secretaries were busy positioning themselves for the plum job of EU Foreign Minister, who was busy protecting Britain's interests? After the Prime Minister was outsmarted in Europe and was led to accept Baroness Ashton for the Foreign Minister job, the most important post of all was snatched from right under his nose. The Prime Minister, who takes every opportunity to portray himself as the City's knight in shining armour and as an economic messiah ready to lead the country out of recession, has completely sold out Britain for the sake of parachuting his fourth-choice candidate into a non-job.
	France secured one of the top economic posts in the new Commission after a former French Minister, Michel Barnier, was named as the new Internal Market Commissioner with responsibility for financial services. The other key economic posts will go to Spain and Finland. It is reasonable to expect that Mr. Barnier, a protectionist who has been openly hostile to the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism, will seek sweeping regulatory reforms of financial services, most of which are located in our square mile in London. Many have voiced their criticism of Mr. Barnier's appointment, including the major French-I say left-leaning-newspaper  Le Monde. In July, it compared giving the internal market post to Barnier with entrusting the surveillance of a chicken coop to a fox.
	Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, has gleefully declared that the English "are the big losers" after the carve-up of EU posts. In a speech a couple of days ago, he asked:
	"Do you know what it means for me to see for the first time in 50 years a French European Commissioner in charge of the internal market, including financial services, including the City?"
	We do not need to have it spelt out any clearer than that. He went on boldly to declare:
	"I want the world to see the victory of the European model, which has nothing to do with the excesses of financial capitalism."
	The Prime Minister has let himself be completely out-manoeuvred by President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel, who, it has become clear, had agreed in private, prior to the meetings in Brussels, to take control of financial services. Barnier's deputy will be the Briton, Jonathan Faull, as has been mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). However, it is doubtful whether Faull's appointment will secure Britain's interests, as he has worked for the Commission bureaucracy for more than 30 years and has no experience whatever of the City.
	It would be interesting to know whether the Government are still adamant that that carve-up was a "major achievement for Britain", as the Foreign Secretary tried to convince the House on 23 November. It would also be interesting to know what steps the Government will take to ensure that Britain's interests are not bypassed in the EU-apart, of course, from the Chancellor's letter to  The Times pleading for mercy, and his failed visit to Brussels yesterday. After Brown's failure in Brussels last month, the Chancellor was fobbed off by Europe's Finance Ministers in Brussels yesterday, which forced the Government to accept more concessions.
	Not only will the City be at the mercy of a protectionist Frenchman, but Britain will be able to appeal decisions by the European supervisory authorities only if we secure the support of a majority of members. It seems that every time the Government feebly try to fix things, the more damage they do. As Sarkozy accurately points out, the loser is Britain.
	As we all know, the Commission is extremely active in the area of financial regulation and supervision. Current plans include the new directive on alternative investment fund managers, which seeks to create a new pan-EU regulator for financial markets. This is set to be just the first of many blows to the City of London after Barnier's appointment as chief enforcer.
	After the European and local elections in June, it was crystal clear that our constituents wanted less intrusion and meddling from Europe. What we will get from having a protectionist Frenchman in the top economic job is yet more regulations that will seriously hamper Britain's road to economic recovery.

Austin Mitchell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interjection, because clearly Baroness Ashton deserves the money. She is only following the example of the former leader of the Liberal Democrat party in building up a huge pension plan, which sustained the party for a long period.
	I was talking about today's skirmish, in which our side is being led not by the Foreign Secretary but by our hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. He is acting not as the King but as the Rupert in this particular battle, and I must say that he is doing it very well. He is making a brilliant fist of his job, but I wish that his ability and eloquence were applied to a better cause than the Euro-enthusiasm that he has always manifested. He is right in the tradition of first-class Foreign Office minds, in that he now devotes all his effort and attention to developing second-class arguments for the third-class-indeed, third-rate-institution called the European Union. Every defeat must be interpreted as a victory and every loss as a gain, and we must always say that Britain leads, however humiliated Britain is.
	The Foreign Office and its Ministers seem to live in a different European Union from the rest of the country. The US Department of Defence has a situation room; the Foreign Office has a fantasy room, where matters European are discussed. There is a naive view of Europe as the Foreign Office would like it to be, not as it actually is: a Europe that is kind to small countries and helpful to poor ones, even while it excludes their agriculture from our markets; a Europe that is of great benefit to the UK, even while it makes enormous demands on us, with a growing deficit and contribution burden; a Europe that defers to British wisdom, even while a new leadership of the European Union emerges as Angela Merkel endeavours, successfully, to interpose herself into the world's greatest love affair of Sarkozy with Sarkozy-it is now in fact a threesome. That is what dominates Europe; we do not, and it is no use pretending that we do.
	Another example of such Euro-think is my hon. Friend's interpretation of the latest appointments as a triumph; I think that that is what he said. Personally, I think that it is a shame that Tony Blair did not emerge as the President of Europe. He would have done well in that position. He can convince anyone of anything. He might have been able to convince people of the benefits of Europe, given his eloquence. Europe certainly needs someone of his vigour, energy and traffic-stopping ability.
	The appointments show what Europe really wants, and it is not the flair of that kind of leader. Europe wants to be a bigger Belgium. That is the European aspiration: to be a bigger Belgium, dominated of course by France and Germany, which is inward-looking, has low growth and high unemployment-it is the black spot of the advanced world-and maintains agricultural protection to keep out the agricultural production of smaller countries. It is true that we have the foreign policy post-

Austin Mitchell: No, I am not listening to another account of the incomes of European Commissioners.
	We have the foreign policy post, which escalates in title even as it diminishes in power. It is now High Representative-or perhaps it is Lord High Representative now. It is a job as important as herding cats-a collection of cats that do not particularly want to go in any direction that we might, whether that be into Iraq or into Afghanistan.
	In this situation, we have the rather useless foreign policy portfolio of the High Representative, but the French have grabbed the key economic portfolio of the internal market, which the City sees as a terrifying threat. The Chancellor tells us that the City's interests will be safeguarded and that it will not be ruled from Europe, but I am afraid that when we signed the Lisbon treaty that is what we signed up for, and I am sure that that is what will happen.
	We can observe all this with great fondness. It is an entertaining spectacle. What is more, it is free to air, like ITV. But we must pay for it in the long run, and that is what I want to talk about today. The costs of Europe to this country are heavy, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said. At a time when we are moving into a climate of cuts, economies and straitened resources, we are paying a heavy price to stay in Europe and contribute to it. For instance, we are paying the increased in connection with the rebate, which I thought was agreed to by Tony Blair while he was Prime Minister as the first down payment on the job of President in the future. Unfortunately, the down payment was taken but the item was not forthcoming in the sales. Thanks to that, our net contribution rose to £6 billion. It rises again with devaluation, which reduces the value of the pound, to about £8 billion.
	That is only the budget contribution; we also contribute to other projects, such as Galileo and others. With Galileo, a satellite guidance system is being designed, and we are being charged for it, even though the Americans provide such a system for free. That will cost £2 billion to £3 billion. Then we have the common agricultural policy. The OECD estimates the cost of that-the resource cost, anyway-to be £15 billion. The cost to us of the common fisheries policy, which has not been mentioned but certainly needs to be abolished, is about £3 billion. That is the cost to us in fish from British waters that are landed not in Britain but at other European ports, where they are processed.
	That all represents a huge cost across the exchanges, and we have to finance it with a declining pound. Our balance of trade deficit last year was £48 billion, and the cost of Europe adds up to between £20 billion and £25 billion. In other words, about half our balance of trade deficit goes on financing membership of the European Union. That is not the only cost, because there are other, more internal costs. We have the cost of regulation, which the CBI estimates to be between £20 million and £40 million, and the cost of low growth, because European economies, including ours, have grown about 1.2 per cent. less than other advanced countries outside Europe. The cumulative loss of growth amounts to 0.5 per cent. of GDP a year, which is about another £7 billion, so the total cost of Europe is more than £50 billion-to an economy that will be crippled and straitened by the need for economies and cuts in the years ahead.
	What are the British people going to say when they are told that we have to cut the health service, education, and other services or benefits, in order to maintain this large contribution to Europe? Will they be dancing in the streets, as our Government might like, or will they become angry, upset and alienated? It is a tremendous burden to bear for membership of a club that is actually damaging our economy-an economy in which we are running a massive and growing trade deficit.
	My hon. Friend the Minister said in his speech that in dealing with the recession, a unity of purpose had emerged. Well, it has not. What has emerged is the propensity of individual countries to do much the same thing, because the obvious thing to do in a deflationary situation is to expand one's spending-to introduce stimulus spending along Keynesian lines. I know that the Conservatives do not want to do that, but it is the obvious and sensible thing to do. The only commonality is that all countries have done so as a matter of individual volition, but Europe has damaged that process, because the euro makes it impossible for countries with a deficit, countries in difficulties or countries that have been hit by recession to devalue their currency as we have devalued ours.
	The pound is down by about 25 per cent., and that is good. It is an enormous economic stimulus; we will benefit from it, and manufacturing will grow and improve. Other European countries cannot devalue their currency, however: Ireland cannot do so, and that is why it has plunged deep into recession; Spain cannot do so; Italy cannot do so; and the Greek situation, whereby public sector borrowing is drying up because people want a premium on the interest rate paid, will spread like a contagion to the other euro countries. In that situation the euro becomes a tremendous burden to bear, and thank heavens we do not have to bear that burden. It was very far-sighted of our Prime Minister and the Labour party to keep us out of the euro.

Nigel Evans: It is a joy to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who speaks much common sense on European issues, as he does on many other matters. I hope that I will not take up the 15 minutes allotted to me today, but I believe this to be a vital issue. I am not sure whether this will be the last debate on Europe before the next general election. I saw the Minister looking somewhat sceptical-and it is always nice to see people looking sceptical in debates on Europe. He seemed sceptical about whether it was our last such debate, and he may be right. Many people have said that they hope that the Minister will stay a long time in the job. I think that the electorate may well be the deciders in that regard; it will certainly not be the Prime Minister. He has to call a general election before June, whatever happens, and whether it is in May or in March, I believe that the Minister is looking at a more restricted duration in the job that he is doing.
	Many hon. Members mentioned the Lisbon treaty. What is the current position in that regard? We have an EU President, who is, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a household name, and who controls 3,500 civil servants in the Council Secretariat, creating a new power base, and will now lead on negotiations as if he were a Head of State. We have an EU Foreign Minister-another household name and face-who will have her own diplomatic service, which will, I am sure, grow year on year as the EU has missions all over the world. I should imagine that the lure will be to save a lot of money and roll it all into one EU mission, and then the question will be, "Why do we need all these independent, separate British embassies and high commissions all over the world when we can have just the one with the EU blue flag flying over it?" We then have the single legal personality for the EU, which will enable it to join international organisations in its own right; a self-amending treaty enabling the EU to grant itself more powers without the need for a new treaty; the abolition of national vetoes in 60 new areas, including energy, transport and employment law; and, of course, the new EU diplomatic service.
	A lot of hon. Members stand up in this place and say, "We are against a federal united states of Europe." However, we now have a President, a Foreign Minister, an anthem, a flag and a diplomatic mission-how much more do we need before we can say that we have a united states of Europe? That is the very thing that we did not wish to happen, and the very thing that the people of Britain have not been consulted on since 1975. I am sick and tired of people saying to me, "The last time I voted on this in 1975 I voted to join the Common Market." Of course, that is exactly what they voted for-the Common Market. They did not vote to join a united states of Europe with its own President, Foreign Minister and diplomatic corps. We talk about the sovereignty of this place, yet we have signed up to things and signed away rights in the name of the British public without consulting them, and we have done it in their name.
	All the changes that have happened are major constitutional changes that were found in the proposed constitution. They are the major changes on which the British people were denied their say when the Government reneged on their promise to hold a referendum. Conservative Members recognise that Lisbon was merely a cut-and-paste version of the constitution. On the BBC's "The Politics Show" on 24 June 2007, just a matter of days before he became Prime Minister, the Prime Minister said:
	"The manifesto is what we put to the public. We've got to honour that manifesto. That is an issue of trust for me with the electorate."
	I wonder whether he now realises that one of the biggest factors in making him one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in living memory is that he is unable to be straight with the public on any issue whatsoever. This is more important than what biscuit he likes-it is about the way in which we are governed in this country, and he cannot be straight with the British public.
	To make matters worse, the Prime Minister has been totally out-manoeuvred on the European stage. One of the most important jobs in Europe has gone to Michel Barnier as Commissioner for the single market. Yesterday, Sarkozy was quoted as having said:
	"Do you know what it means for me to see for the first time in 50 years a French European Commissioner in charge of the internal market, including financial services, including the City?"
	It is important to stress that there is now a very important job, the holder of which will dictate what will happen in one of the most successful parts of what goes on in the UK and Europe. One senior banker has said:
	"Surrendering control of the City of London to the French in return for some nonentity getting a non-job is one of the biggest fiascos of British diplomacy since Suez. The fact that Sarkozy is now being gleeful makes it worse. The Prime Minister must explain how he will protect the City from EU meddling or lose what remaining credibility he has in the City."

Nigel Evans: Of course I agree. I shall come on to the non-job and the nonentity filling it, who is Cathy Ashton, a lady who has never been elected to anything and is doing rather well for herself. I would not know her if I fell over her-she is not a household name or face, yet she is now doing this job not for Britain but for Europe. A lot has been said about the need to be absolutely certain whether she is doing her job in the interests of the EU, but I suspect that the French, being the French, will very much look at what is in the best interests of France-they always do. I actually have a grudging respect for how the French always look after the French, and they have done so in this matter. We were all supposed to be gleeful about a Brit getting one of the so-called top jobs in Europe, but it did not make me gleeful at all.
	We know that the EU does not yet have power over foreign policy, but I am sure that that is a work in progress. I suspect that in 20 years' time, if it does not have its own dedicated foreign policy and armed forces, it will be very disappointed. Foreign policy and defence should remain with sovereign states, and I was disappointed by a story in  The Sun this morning headed, "Where the hell are EU?" It mentions the contributions of forces from other EU states to what is going in Afghanistan, which show that we are clearly not all working together. It goes through how many troops countries have there. We know that we have committed 10,000 troops to that war on terrorism, which affects everybody. Germany has committed 4,300, France 3,095, Italy 2,700, Holland 2,100, Poland 1,910, Spain 1,000, Romania 990, the Czech Republic 690, Denmark 690, Belgium 530, Luxembourg eight and Ireland seven. What the heck is going on?

Nigel Evans: This is a vital subject, and I am not having fun with it at all. The important point is not just the numbers, it is where those troops are. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to mention the number who have actually fallen, because it indicates what sort of role they are playing when they are out in Afghanistan. We know that there are trouble spots and other areas in which people are less likely to come into danger than a G4S security guard in a factory in London. Some countries attach conditions to the troops that they send, one of which is that it should be a nine-to-five job, and they don't want to come across any trouble, thank you very much. The chance of a body bag coming back is zero.
	That prompts me to ask what we mean when we talk about Europe acting together on this vital issue. Spain, for goodness' sake, has been one of the greatest victims of terrorist attacks-not by al-Qaeda as such, but people in that country know what terrorism is, as do people in a number of other countries. The war against terrorism affects us all and we must fight the battle together, in similar numbers and without conditions. That is important, because the 10,000 troops we have given are in the areas where there is most hostility. We know by the number of deaths that have, sadly, taken place that our troops are on the front line, in the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan, shoulder to shoulder with the United States of America. That is where, I believe, the rest of Europe ought also to be. I would not dictate that there should be a Defence Minister in Europe who says that that must happen, but every Prime Minister of every EU country must look at their responsibilities and obligations regarding that war, and I want to see their countries playing their part in it as we do.
	I am very much looking forward to the next general election. I am very sad that the Lisbon treaty has been signed and that the people of this country have been denied the opportunity of a referendum, which they were promised by Tony Blair and the Prime Minister. However, the reality is that we do not have that opportunity-the Lisbon treaty is law and came into force on 1 December.
	It is appropriate, without going over old battles and looking at the scars, which have been mentioned, to look to the future and ask what sort of Europe we want to create. I am very much in favour of Turkey, Croatia, which I believe is next in line, and many of the Balkan states, if they wish to join, acceding to the European Union. We should not be a closed club. France and Germany are worried about how Europe is developing. They want a much deeper European Union. We clearly do not, but do we want a European Union that does not close the door on other European countries.
	I am a proud member of the Council of Europe, in which there are 47 countries. Why should we turn around and tell Georgia or Ukraine, or indeed Turkey, that they can never join the European Union? They are all proud members of the Council of Europe. I believe we ought to consider expanding the EU as quickly as possible. Independent conditions should be laid down, and when countries meet them, they should be automatically eligible to join. That should be that-there should no politicking behind closed doors, as happens so much in the EU.
	I was looking down the list of the great, famous Europeans who act in our name. Michel Barnier is one of the most famous- [ Interruption. ] I should imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) would not be prepared to take one of those jobs. The list includes Antonio Tajani, Karel De Gucht, Connie Hedegaard, Günther Oettinger, Cecilia Malmström, and so it goes on. Our commissioners are led by José Manuel Barroso, whom people would be very unlikely to recognise if he walked into their local. All those people act in our name as part of this great European creation that has come about since we joined in 1973 and since we last had a referendum in 1975.
	It is about time we struck back for this country. We get elected here, unlike Cathy Ashton, and we have a democratic right to speak on behalf of our constituents. The one thing that our electorate enjoy almost more than anything else is the opportunity to get rid of an unpopular Government and remove people they do not like. That is impossible with EU commissioners, all of whom earn considerable sums of money, as do the new President and foreign secretary. The President earns, I think, £350,000, but that might be €350,000-they are virtually the same value these days anyway. Those people, whom nobody would know, but who are governing in our name, earn incredible sums of money.
	I look forward to the next general election when we will be able to give the British public an opportunity to put a party-the Conservative party-into power that will wrestle back those powers that have been given away, so that we can dictate how those powers are used. I look forward to the general election, after which we will have a sovereignty Bill, because it will give the people of this country an opportunity to put into power a Government who believe in the sovereignty of this Parliament. The next election will be vital. The Government made one of their gravest mistakes in the handling of the Lisbon treaty and denying people a referendum. It has provided a great opportunity for narrow, xenophobic parties such as the British national party and the UK Independence party to claim that they speak on behalf of the British people. Well, they do not, and I do not believe that either of those parties will have a Member of Parliament after the election. But they have been given a bigger platform by being able to claim that the Prime Minister denied the British people what they had been promised. The biggest error and the most undemocratic thing that the Prime Minister did was to deny that referendum because he knew what the result would be. He denied the British people the opportunity to vote no, and that was a shocking own goal.

Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on a splendid speech, and I agree with every word that he said. Unusually, I shall strike a note of optimism about the future in my speech, because the tectonic plates have started to shift. We-apart perhaps from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)-have moved away from a sort of theological Europeanism towards a more pragmatic tone. There is still a big gulf between those who take a critical position, such as me, and Ministers, but the tone is more pragmatic. Indeed, the Minister for Europe was praising the pick- and-mix approach to the European Union, in which Britain has been a leader, as we have opted out of several areas and taken a more critical stance than others.
	I am proud to be a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. We visit other member countries, speak to people there, and our approach influences them. They are surprised to find that we are a robust group of individuals with different views. We put our views trenchantly and strongly, and if something-such as the common agricultural policy-is total nonsense, we say so. That approach is engendering a more pragmatic approach to European matters.
	Another reason for optimism is the events of the past couple of weeks. We were fearful that we would have a powerful President of Europe, with a powerful Foreign Minister, and that we would move rapidly towards the supranational European state-a country called Europe-to which the theological Europeans so look forward. But that has changed. The leaders of the European nations, especially Sarkozy and Merkel, have asked themselves whether they really want a European Union with a President who would be the first person whom President Obama would call when he wanted to speak to the Europeans. They would rather he telephoned them. Angela Merkel in particular wants President Obama to call her first, not the President of the European Union. That is one of the reasons why they have promoted that very nice man, Mr. Van Rompuy from Belgium-I am gradually getting used to his name, although it has been a struggle-and Cathy Ashton. She is a very fine woman and I have met her on a couple of occasions, but she is clearly not the forceful Foreign Minister that people had imagined. There is cause for optimism, therefore, a pragmatism and a move away from the idea of a supernatural European state-I mean supranational, although theologians might want the former.
	People emphasise to me that there will be no more constitutional change-certainly not towards federalism or a European superstate. The time has come for those who take a critical position to say, "Let's see if we can row back and repatriate some of the powers that have been given to the European Union, particularly in some of the most nonsensical areas, such as the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy."
	I welcome what I see as a change of direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, welcomed the downgrading of the European President to a mere committee chairman. That is fine by me. I would like to see a lot of downgrading, including of the European Commission. It should be opened up and made much more transparent. Let us have it all in public. Why not? They can discuss things in public. Alternatively, we could have proper ministerial control, like we have here, with a civil service that does what it is told by Ministers, rather than the other way around. The European Commission, however, has powers to tell Ministers and politicians what to do.
	We have seen a drawing back. On a recent visit to a member state, we were told that the French and Dutch referendums, which were lost, were a wake-up call to the Eurofanatics and theological Europeans, some of whom have now drawn back. The pressure to move towards a superstate has been undermined. For example, let us consider the struggles over the Lisbon treaty, which only just got through-it squeaked through in the end with a referendum and the Czech President having his arm twisted so hard that he finally agreed to sign. But it was a close-run thing. I believe that the future direction of travel will involve a rowing back rather than a move towards a superstate.
	I want to talk in particular about economics, because the European Union is more about economics than anything else. It has been an attempt to impose a neo-liberal economic model across the European Union as one single European entity. That clearly has not happened. Several major states, including Britain, have chosen not to join the euro, and it is unlikely-I hope-that we will ever join.

Kelvin Hopkins: Yes, but no one seriously believes it. We are all in favour of motherhood and apple pie, but we do not always pursue those, do we?
	The fact that we were out of the euro and able to depreciate our currency gave a little protection to our industry during this appalling crisis. That showed the wisdom of our Prime Minister in keeping us out of the euro all those years ago. The Swedes have had a similar experience: they sensibly voted not to enter the euro and had a referendum as well.
	There are, however, serious economic stresses inside the EU with the arrangement that it attempted to impose. The Greeks are at the sharp end of all this. They look likely to default on their borrowing and are in a very serious economic situation. The EU is unlikely to bail them out because it does not want to create what it calls a moral hazard-if one country gets bailed out, all the others will want to be bailed out. It can help one, if it is the only one, but we know that there are others. If it bails out Greece, why not bail out Ireland and some of the Baltic states? Clearly, therefore, Greece will not be bailed out.
	Greece has enormous problems, and the logical thing to do-were I a Greek, I would be saying this-is to withdraw from the euro, recreate its national currency, depreciate it and then reconstruct what has been damaged internally. If that happens, other countries might do the same. I have suggested to Irish politicians-in a friendly way-that that would be a logical thing for them to do.
	Ireland's natural partner economy is the United Kingdom, but the Irish have terrible problems because they are stuck in the euro up there. They blame us, saying, "It's your fault because you devalued," but if they had not gone into the euro, they would have been able to do the same thing as others.
	There are also many countries in eastern Europe that are thinking twice about whether it was wise to have that economic model imposed on them. If they had kept their own currencies and gone for a balanced, social democratic, managed economy, they might have done better than by making the transition from a centralised, communist economy to extreme free market neo-liberalism. That has caused those countries all sorts of problems. If I were from one of those countries, I would certainly be arguing for a more managed economy and for those countries' currencies, saying, "Let's get a competitive value for our currency against others and work to build the economy on a sound basis for the longer term."

Mark Harper: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and most of what he says makes sense. One of the points that is often lost is that discussions about economics can become very introspective, with everyone talking about the European Union and forgetting that it is probably one of the slowest growing parts of the world. For our economy in the future, what we in this House need to focus on is the faster-growing parts of the world and Britain's ability to compete and trade outside the European Union, as well as with our European partners.

Kelvin Hopkins: Indeed. Growth is at the heart of it all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby pointed out, the European Union has been a massive drag on growth across the European Union, but particularly in Britain. If we had not been in the European Union and instead been able to negotiate our way in the world, we would have grown more quickly. The sheer fact is that we have net fiscal transfers to the European Union that take out a chunk of our economy every year. If we had invested that money over the past 30 or 40 years, we would have a higher standard of living now. It is absolutely right to say that the European Union has acted as a drag on economic growth, not the other way round. The idea that we should deflate our way to success is quite mad.
	The European Scrutiny Committee recently visited Spain-we came back yesterday-where we had some interesting discussions. Like Ireland, Spain was one of those countries that initially benefited enormously from going into the European Union. It went into the eurozone at a comfortable parity and with reduced interest rates, all of which pushed its growth. Spain also received substantial fiscal transfers, through both structural funds and the CAP. It experienced rapid growth and everything was going along nicely, but now Spain has got into difficulties. Growth has stopped and unemployment is rising; it seems likely to rise to some 20 per cent., with 40 per cent. youth unemployment.
	There is an argument in Spain that says, "Let's just restructure. Let's have some reform and a bit more competitiveness." However, that will not solve a problem of that magnitude. One has to look at serious control of one's macro-economic basics and at the Government managing the economy in a direct way. Just changing the terms of trade and getting wages down in order to compete more effectively with other European nations will not solve Spain's problems. Indeed, those whom we met were quite shocked by our, let us say, robust comments on Europe, the European Union and how it operates.
	I have fallen into the trap myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby kept referring to Europe, but the European Union is only a part of Europe. It represents a particular model of politics and economics that has been imposed on a group of nations within Europe, but it is not the complete Europe. Some countries that have chosen to stay outside, such as Norway, have done rather well. I know that Norway has oil and fish, and so on, but it has chosen to stay outside and has done rather well. I am not suggesting that we should leave the European Union, because that would be seen as bad form.  [Laughter.] We want to be comradely with our fellow European nations.
	We want to see radical change and a move back towards the kind of post-war social democracy that worked so well between 1945 and 1970. Lots of myths have been perpetrated about that system, but it worked well. We had steady growth, full employment, rising living standards, growing equality and growing welfare states. It all worked well, until somebody had the bright idea of destroying it all. The European Union has taken that model and imposed it on us, which has been a big mistake. We ought to rethink where we are going economically. Unfortunately, I will not be asked to do that; if I were, I would know what specific things to do immediately-but there we are.
	Let me deal briefly with some of my other concerns. I have already mentioned enlargement and whether or not it is a good idea. There has been a change of mood on that, and I believe that even my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe-we used to debate these matters enthusiastically when he sat on the same Bench as me some time ago-has adopted a more pragmatic rather than theological tone, if I may use those terms again, which is very sensible, too. I look forward to more European debates with him. I am happy to have him representing our interests in Europe, as I believe he is one of the most intelligent Ministers for Europe we have had-we strongly disagree on some issues, but he has a real grip on things-and I believe that he will represent us well.
	The common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy are the real problem. If we are to roll back the European Union, that is where I would start. The CAP still takes about 41 per cent. of the European budget, which is massively distorting. France and Spain, for example-two of the more prosperous nations-are still net recipients of funding, while we are a massive net contributor. That is nonsense. I believe that each country should manage its own agriculture. We should choose what we do and do not subsidise. We should decide what level of agricultural production we want in our own country for security reasons. It is wise to retain some degree of agriculture for the long term. A country that cannot produce sufficient for itself is a poor country.

Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although so much of our money is going to support European agriculture, a lot of it is being hived off for the bureaucracy, and this country still has farmers-certainly dairy farmers in my constituency, for example-who are going out of business simply because they are producing at a cost greater than the price they can get for their milk? Is not the CAP letting them down badly?

Kelvin Hopkins: Indeed, the whole thing is a bureaucratic nightmare. All those organisations and structures are always inefficient. I think that the polities or Governments who can make the best decisions on behalf of their agriculturalists are the national member states. Our Government would make much better decisions about how and what to subsidise than any European Union could ever do. The milk producers would have a much better time if they were looked after by our Government rather than by the European Union.
	Let me finish by saying that the biggest nonsense of all is the common fisheries policy, which has led directly to the over-fishing of our seas. They will not be restocked, I believe, until we abolish the CFP and re-establish the national waters that used to be recognised, so that each country has responsibility for husbanding its own resources in its own fisheries. The issue would be taken more seriously in that case. While it is possible to fish in other countries' waters and land "black fish" as they are called-effectively cheating on the system and over-fishing elsewhere-countries will carry on doing it. Only when they have the responsibility for managing their own waters will we start to see fisheries restocked as they should be and a more sensible approach to fishing. We all enjoy fish, and as we have been told over the last couple of days, the Spanish enjoy them more than anyone else. Unless we go back to that system, however, we may finish up not being able to eat any fish at all. I would have liked to have spoken for longer, but perhaps I have said enough.

Robert Goodwill: There has been a lot of debate this afternoon about influence and securing positions, and we have discussed how the work of the European Parliament can impact on the UK's influence on legislation and other matters. Having been a member of the European Parliament for five years-more than five years ago now-I know that there are interesting contrasts between debates there, where one is allocated two minutes at 8 pm so that one has to sit down at 8.2 pm, and debates here, where there is genuine discussion and testing of arguments as a result of interventions and so on.
	The problem in this Parliament, partly because a party is either in government or it is not, is that there is no real communication between the parties aimed at reaching a consensus. That may be a good thing in some ways, but it often means that the views of minorities are not taken into account in quite the same way. The voting system in this Parliament means-we saw this happening last night-that amendments sometimes cannot be debated or voted on. At least the European Parliament could vote on 300 amendments in the space of an hour, and Members could table amendments in order to put down a marker. Even if they knew the amendments would not succeed, it would allow them to smoke out the opposition, who might have to declare their position.
	There has been much talk about the new Conservative group in the European Parliament. There has been some criticism from Labour Members, much of which is, I think, due to a misunderstanding among both the wider public and the political elite-if that is the right word for the House of Commons-of the way in which the European Parliament works and influence is brought to bear. That is not helped by the fact that our newspapers rarely, if ever, report on the ministrations and machinations of the European Parliament. Only  The Financial Times seems to take the processes there seriously. Today a Liberal Democrat made the sensible suggestion that a European Question Time in the House of Commons might provide a useful way of separating European policy from wider foreign policy.

Peter Bone: I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but throughout the debate only one Liberal Democrat, at best, has been present. I really do not think we should be taking too much advice from the Liberal Democrats on Europe, especially after their performance last night.

Robert Goodwill: Even the Liberal Democrats-dare I say it?- occasionally come up with good ideas. I know that that is a controversial statement.
	The Conservative party used to sit with the European People's party and the European Democrats, the biggest group in the European Parliament. The European Democrats "bit" was the Conservative "bit". It was recognised that the British Conservatives had a separate Whip. The reason for that was the fundamental difference between the British Conservatives' vision of Europe-I suppose it could be summed up by the famous slogan of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), "In Europe, not run by Europe"-and the majority of the rest of the European People's party, who were intent on establishing a federal united states of Europe.
	That system worked well to a degree. Many of us who were MEPs engaged well within the group. I was a deputy co-ordinator in the environment committee, and a member of the bureau. However, there was always a niggling doubt about whether the thrust of the group's policy was going in the direction that the majority of the people who had voted for me in Scarborough and Whitby at the last election would have wished. I was delighted when our new group was formed because it allowed us to be a good neighbour to the EPP, rather than an annoying and irritating tenant from time to time.
	I predict that the operations of the EPP group and the new Conservative group in the Parliament will work very well. Having been a member of the environment committee, I know that in order to secure the majorities that are needed-particularly on Second Reading, when a majority among those eligible to vote is required rather than a majority among those who turn up on the day-it is vital to get the other political groups together and, often, to forge a compromise agreement. I am sure that the new Conservative group will be the first port of call for the EPP when it wishes to get its amendments through. I often found that I had to do deals with all sorts of people-green communists, former communists, Liberal Democrats and, on many occasions, socialists-to get amendments through.
	The criticisms levelled at the new group are largely unfounded, and I do not believe the British Conservatives will lose influence as a result of the new arrangement. As has already been pointed out, Malcolm Harbour, an excellent west midlands Conservative MEP who used to work in the motor industry, will chair the internal market committee. I can think of no one more suited to advancing the work of that committee. Philip Bradbourn, another west midlands MEP, is to chair the committee for relations with Canada, and-this is more significant, in my view-Struan Stevenson is to chair the committee for relations between the European Parliament and the new Iraqi Parliament. Those are important positions of influence.
	Every committee also has a team of co-ordinators who dole out the reports and sort out the business. In the past, it was often frustrating when there was no Conservative, or even like-minded EPP, co-ordinator. Deals were done behind closed doors without our being involved.
	The new group will have a co-ordinator on every single committee, which means we will have a voice on every committee when those important reports are given out.  [Interruption.] The Minister says we will not get any, but only last week Martin Callanan, a British Conservative from the north-east of England, secured the very important report on light commercial vehicles and CO2-I am sure the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) will be interested to learn that that report has been secured by a British Conservative-which will enable him to take that legislation through the Parliament in the same way as a Westminster Minister takes legislation through this Parliament, and steer it in the right direction.
	I therefore strongly feel that this new group will be able to secure such important reports. Indeed, we might do particularly well in securing smaller reports. I remember that the EPP and the Socialist group would often save up their points for a bidding battle on a very big report, and the smaller groups such as the Union for Europe of the Nations and the European Democratic party would therefore pick up along the way many smaller reports, which nevertheless had a lot of influence on business and employment in the fields they addressed.
	Many people do not understand how the rapporteurs and co-ordinators work; when people do, they can understand just how much influence we will have. That particularly comes into play in the context of conciliations. I was a member of the EPP's conciliation group. We had meetings that went on late into the night, sometimes finishing at 4 o'clock in the morning. I remember a meeting on the waste electronics directive. We were very keen to prevent the producers of printers from making printer ink cartridges non-recyclable by putting a smart chip in them, which would mean that they could not be replaced. I and a Liberal Democrat Member, Chris Davies, threatened to walk out, make that committee inquorate and force the Environment Council to give in on that point. That is an example of a Liberal Democrat who represents a small group being able to make an important impact on the work of the Parliament. The European Parliament is not like our Parliament, where we are either batting or fielding. There, we all take turns to bat, and the new group will have some very good opportunities to do so.
	Bizarrely, it has also been said that President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel will not talk to the leader of my party if the Conservatives are not in the same group as their parties. It is interesting that they talk to the current Prime Minister of this country, even though he is in a different group that is diametrically opposed to their views.
	One particularly frustrating aspect of my time in that Parliament was that, in trying to cobble together deals and get vital majorities in Britain's interest, we were often working closely with officials and Ministers of the British Labour Government, but their own Members of the European Parliament refused to take the advice they were getting from Westminster. Instead, they sometimes sided with their European socialist colleagues and blew legislation out of the water. I am thinking in particular of the large combustion plants directive. We sought amendments to exempt some of the smaller coal-burning stations that operated for short periods at peak demand. The advice from the British people in Brussels-the United Kingdom Permanent Representation-and from British Ministers was that we should get those amendments through to protect our coal mining industry and those coal stations in case of peak demand. However, Labour MEPs combined with colleagues in the European Socialist group to undermine those amendments and prevent that from happening. As we warned at the time, that has contributed to some of the energy supply problems we now face in this country.
	Many of the new Members of the European Parliament from newer states such as the Czech Republic and Poland very much share our view that we should have a Europe of independent member states. That may be because they have experience of being dominated by another capital-Moscow-and do not want quickly to exchange that for another situation where domination, albeit more benign, can be imposed from Brussels.
	Whatever happened to subsidiarity? Perhaps the Minister will address that in his winding-up speech. I remember that when I first arrived in the European Parliament, subsidiarity was the buzz word. The fashionable topics were devolving power down to member states and only making decisions at the European level if that was absolutely necessary. In the new treaty, however, things are going in the opposite direction, which is a great concern.
	I am very proud that Polish and Czech members from mainstream parties in their countries have joined us in our group. Some of the criticisms that have been levelled at my colleagues-especially Michael Kaminski, whom I have known for six or seven years-are absolutely unfounded and I hope they will not be repeated in this Chamber.
	A lot has been said about the waste involved in Europe and the fact that its budget has not been signed off for 14 consecutive years. I speak as a farmer who has received common agricultural policy aid, but the CAP has distorted markets and, in particular, third-world access to them. How can anyone justify spending €1 billion of taxpayers' money every year subsidising tobacco production in southern European states? Much of this tobacco is of such low quality that it cannot be consumed in the European Union and has to be exported to third-world countries, where, obviously, it contributes to health problems. How can that situation be justified?
	How can the Strasbourg Parliament be justified? It is outrageous. I recall the frustrations of having to pack my stuff into those tin boxes-we always missed out the important file that we should have taken-and of trying to work there; the expense of travelling there, and of transporting all the officials there and putting them up in hotels; and the difficulties of working there. One way to make progress would be to prevent the continuation of the Strasbourg fiasco.
	I shall discuss two European institutions that I have not even heard mentioned in this Chamber in the nearly five years that I have been a Member: the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee-ECOSOC. Now that the European Parliament has come of age-now that we have co-decision on fisheries and more co-decision is coming into the Parliament-what justification can there be for the duplication that ECOSOC and the Committee of the Regions represents? When I was in the European Parliament, I discovered, by accident, that a report I was handling on motorcycle emissions was also being discussed in the Committee of the Regions. I do not know what happened to the results of those deliberations-they certainly were not communicated to the Parliament. They might have been communicated to the Council, but I never heard Ministers or officials referring to the concerns that had been expressed in the Committee of the Regions.
	That is bad enough, but then there is the cost to consider. The Committee of the Regions has a brand new building-it might be four or five years old-on rue Belliard in Brussels. I managed to find the accounts for ECOSOC, from which I discovered that its annual budget is €120 million. The committee does not give money out to people to do things; it is a purely bureaucratic organisation that discusses matters and duplicates the work of the European Parliament. May I make a suggestion that the Minister might like to adopt if he gets the opportunity to see how these committees can be reviewed? We got this suggestion through the environment committee in the European Parliament, but it foundered at the plenary session. We said, "If member states are so keen for the Committee of the Regions and ECOSOC to continue to do their work, why don't they pick up the bill for the subsistence and travel costs of the members from their own countries?" Why not have such costs justified at the Dispatch Box in this House when the Budget is considered?
	I suspect that if we had to put our hands in our own pockets, rather than just relying on the European budget, we would look more closely at the work of these committees and ask whether we really need them. I suspect that we would ask whether they are now superfluous because the European Parliament has developed from a talking shop to a real legislature, and the two committees are still mired in that talking shop situation. I hope the Minister will think about this matter, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) becomes the Minister for Europe, perhaps he will think about how we can save some money and restore some common sense.
	People are perhaps disenchanted with Britain's membership of the European Union now. I am enthusiastic that Britain should remain a member, but I am disappointed that people did not get an opportunity to vote on the Lisbon treaty. Such a vote was promised by all three parties at the previous election. There is no point in having a referendum now; there is no point in closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Nobody should be in any doubt as to who is responsible here-it is the Prime Minister of this country, who denied people the referendum we thought Tony Blair had promised us.
	Europe should be more democratic and closer to the people. By signing up to the Lisbon treaty, the Government have moved in the opposite direction. They must be aware of that, as they were punished at the European elections with the lowest share of the vote ever achieved by the Labour party in a national election. I believe that they will be punished again at the next general election.

Gisela Stuart: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would take that view, but I disagree with him. Sovereignty to me is a bit like pregnancy: one either is or is not. However, his point leads to me something much more important. Rather than screaming about sovereignty, this is about the presumptions of the negotiations. People have already mentioned financial regulation. The headline "Darling loses key EU battle over fiscal sovereignty" has been brought up in relation to the presumption about the burden of proof. The presumption is not that the Commission has to justify what it is doing; the member state has to make a case, on a majority, that what is being done is not justified. The real way around this is to change those presumptions. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby talked about what has happened to the word "subsidiarity". My argument is that rather than argue about reclaiming powers, we should have a different presumption.
	Subsidiarity has disappeared from the scene because it does not work. In the past 10 years, the Commission has only ever had one proposal rejected because it was deemed to breach subsidiarity-the zoo directive, which we tried to bring in during our presidency. That is hardly a great record. Every EU directive that comes forward ought to contain in the preamble proof that the measure cannot be implemented in nation states, and therefore has to be handled at EU level. That would change the whole argument and would mean that rather than people always having to defend what is done at EU level, the EU would have to make the case that the nation state cannot do certain things.
	That point brings me to an issue that we never mention here. The debate is about European affairs, and we ought at some stage to talk about the nature of the nation state. I want to do that briefly today. What is our relationship? We say that Europe is great because we are all in favour of co-operation, but co-operation and political integration are two very different things. We saw this earlier when we talked about fiscal stimulus. That was not about political integration: it was about co-operation, and member states doing something at the same time.
	The reason why I am so angry about the referendum is that with the passing of the Lisbon treaty, we have created a supranational institution. There is all the talk about rowing back, but it has gone. Forget it, folks; it has been sold. There is now a supranational institution that has never had the endorsement or consent of the 350 million people across the European Union, because referendums were either ignored or were rubbished on the basis that the issue was too complicated and people were too stupid to take part. That is an argument worth talking about. Governments should show leadership and take people to places that they do not yet know are good for them-but although political leaders have to adopt that leadership role on occasion, there is always the reality test of a general election, when a Prime Minister who takes the country in a direction that it disagrees with gets kicked out.
	There is no mechanism in the EU that allows the people to be asked whether this new supranational institution is what they want. My suspicion is that they probably do not, but that is neither here nor there. I have become agnostic on this matter. I grew up in a federal state so I have no problem with federalism, but I also remember the Austro-Hungarian empire- [ Interruption. ] Not personally, of course, but I grew up with its heritage. That extremely authoritarian institution finally collapsed because it tried to replace national identity with ethnicity. It is always very bad when identity is represented through ethnicity rather than through institutions in the nation state, and we need to be extremely careful in that regard.

William Cash: I am extremely glad to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), although I do not agree with her about everything, particularly the sovereignty Act, which will give us a genuine opportunity. I certainly would not say that out of deference to the leader of my party or my Front-Bench colleagues; I say it only because I believe it.
	None the less, what the hon. Lady said was based on knowledge. I very much agree that these debates are badly attended, and I deplore the fact that people are besieged and completely cowed by the complexity and the labyrinthine bureaucracy lying behind so much of what is churned out by the European Union. It is encapsulated by what Giscard d'Estaing-or it may have been somebody else, but it does not matter-said about the Lisbon treaty: it was made complicated deliberately so that nobody would understand it. That is how we are being governed.
	This is not about government through the European Union; it is about power and control over our Government through majority voting and the lethal power of co-decision. It is about the transfer of power, no less than during the 1640s, when movements were made towards a constitutional monarchy but were denied by civil war, which was followed by the execution of Charles I and the restoration of the 1660s. We transferred power away from the Stuarts after James II to the Hanoverians, maintaining the fiction that we were preserving the monarchy. Actually, it was a transfer of power. That is what this is all about.
	The same happened again in the 18th century, followed by the Reform Acts. The hon. Lady represents Birmingham, as did John Bright, and the great Reform Act and the granting of the vote to the working class were followed by the secret ballot and then, thank heavens, by the vote for women in the 1920s-that was the transfer of power. Then came the European Communities Act 1972, which was a real transfer of power. That is why she is right when she talks about a referendum, as I have done so often. In 1975, the Labour Government, to their credit, gave the people of this country the opportunity to express their view. I know which way I would vote. I voted yes in 1975, but I would not have done so if I had known what would happen. I voted that way not because of ignorance or naivety, but because we were lied to. That is the bottom line. We were told that we would be given the opportunity to engage only in the European Community. We were told in the White Paper-I remember it very well-that we would keep our national veto because it was in our vital national interests to do so. The White Paper went on to say that to do otherwise would undermine the very fabric of the European Community. The veto was necessary, according to the White Paper, for the sake of the European Community, which has become the European Union.
	The reasons why we need to have a referendum are absolute. The people of this country are being denied the opportunity to have their say, and they ought to have their say because many millions of them were born since 1975, and they have been denied the opportunity to express their view. It is really important that we have a referendum, and I have by no means given up on the idea that we will have one through a Conservative Administration. We need one sooner rather than later, but that is only part of the problem.
	The real problem, which is associated with the reasons for the referendum, is that there has been such a significant change in the functions of the European Union. Much more power has been transferred to the bureaucracy and to the labyrinthine process that I witness every week at the European Scrutiny Committee, on which I have sat for 25 years. I may add that I have been consistently outvoted, because every Committee in those 25 years has been packed with people who vote the other way. I say with respect to the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) that, occasionally, he votes with me, and I am grateful for that, but such support is contrary to the normal trend. Indeed, on crucial matters, such as the assessment of treaties, I have to write minority reports.

William Cash: That may be true, but the problem is about political will and the opportunity that people have to express those views not just in a referendum, but even in this House. People are faced with mind-boggling complexities, and it is completely impossible to run the country. We are in charge but not in control. We are not governing the country in line with the democratic wishes of the people. As I said in  The Daily Telegraph the other day, we are merely acting as managing agents for the European Union.
	The situation is exactly the same when we come to the argument on financial services. We have been through that issue, I have spoken about it over and over again in the House, and I have written to the  Financial Times about it many times. We are told that we will have national supervision, but we should forget that, because, as I said in the financial services debate the other day, rules, which will be imposed on us by European regulations, will require certain actions. The question of whether the Commissioner is Monsieur Barnier or anybody else may be important, but the real question is, where does the power lie? As of yesterday, when we allowed the relevant measure to go through and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his deal, the City of London was effectively no longer able to exercise that power over financial services.
	I have been critical of the trade associations in the City of London for allowing that supranationality. In the papers today, I have seen some incredibly hypocritical cant from the leaders of those organisations, who could have put up a real fight but allowed the whole thing to go through, putting 15 per cent. of our gross domestic product at risk. Indeed, I was very glad of the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) when I spoke in the debate two days ago. He agreed that the practitioners whom he had met-he is more likely than many of us to meet them-realised that the situation was not good for their businesses. Many young people are leaving the City of London to go to Zurich, Monaco and other places precisely for that reason.
	The real question is one of power and sovereignty, and that is why I applaud the sovereignty Act proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). I have had discussions with him and my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) about it, and I will continue to have them because I do not give up-ever. They know that we must have a proper sovereignty Act. My point to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston is this: the competition of the sovereignties is very real and we cannot allow ourselves to be run by a judicial autocracy; there is the political power to consider.
	In March, in an important speech on the Human Rights Act 1998, Lord Hoffmann set out his objections to the way in which the Strasbourg Court was arrogating to itself federal, judicial and quasi-political activity. The same could well apply to our own Supreme Court, for the same sorts of reasons. In his very important Maccabean lecture, Sir John Baker, one of the greatest of all legal historians, launched a proper and incisive attack on how Parliament-this Parliament, here in Westminster-has allowed itself to lose its credibility, as the hon. Lady has also said.
	We have lost credibility, not so much in respect of the kind of questions that have been blasted all over the newspapers, although those have contributed, but because we have lost the confidence to exercise our role of accountability in respect of the Government of this country, who themselves, at one remove, have abdicated their responsibility by their policy of appeasement on the European Union.

Gisela Stuart: On the question of competences and sovereignty, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Lisbon treaty creates a competence to create competences? The question of sovereignty is not so much a problem with the courts, as with the fact that the treaty can organically create its own powers. That is beyond the reach of any sovereignty Act.

William Cash: That is not so, I am afraid. I shall not spend the rest of my speech explaining why, although I will be happy to talk to the hon. Lady about it later. I shall be dealing with the matter in due course in Parliament as a whole.
	The hon. Lady referred to the competence question. In relation to the German constitutional court, I have argued for a long time-not in an anti-German sense, but simply because that country is the predominant force in Europe-that Germany is creating a situation in which it determines, through the Karlsruhe court, whether its own constitution will determine the future of Europe. The court is saying that Germany will not do anything inconsistent with its constitution. Gerhard Schröder put it this way a few years ago: "I am European because I am German." That is important because we have to understand that this is about not only the law but matters of foreign policy and the national interests of individual countries represented as the member states of the European Union.
	There was a similar situation, although a long time ago, with regard to the development of the United States. John Taylor, a great ally of Thomas Jefferson on states' rights, set out unequivocally the basis on which in the United States constitution the states' rights were to be absolutely at the heart of the American federal system. The European Union does not exactly have a federal system, but all the necessary ingredients are there, with one great exception. In relation to economic competitiveness, the single market is governed by a uniform system that, as I said in the debate on the financial regulations, prevents competitiveness. We do not have states' rights in the European Union. One reason for the success of the American economy has been those states' rights, which have created an economic environment within which the United States has been capable of developing its economy. We have a mixture of political failure and over-exuberance-perhaps even over-indulgence-in the judicial field, in respect of the European Court of Justice and, quite probably, of our own Supreme Court.
	In addition to that, we have economic failure. The reality is that Europe is not working. There is very high unemployment, as there always has been. I said this during the debates on the Maastricht treaty as well. The bottom line is that there is interference in every nook and cranny of every part of the lives of the people whom we represent. It does not work; that is why we need to have renegotiation.
	In a referendum, which I believe is still essential, the question that I would put, as I said in  The Daily Telegraph the other day, is "Should the United Kingdom renegotiate the terms of its relationship within the European Union?" That is not an "in or out" question, but, believe me, if we presented it to people we would get at least 80 per cent. saying yes, we should renegotiate those terms. That would then enable the United Kingdom to lead the process of renegotiation to turn this increasingly amorphous, homogenous and utterly useless organisation into something that could work effectively on the basis of political co-operation and trade-a semi-EFTA, or European Free Trade Association, arrangement-and get rid of the notion of European government, which is completely autocratic and is destroying our democracy.
	These are not just the rantings of a Eurosceptic. This is about good government and democracy, and proper accountability, in relation to the wishes of the electorate whom we are supposed to represent. I agree with the hon. Lady about the Committee on Reform of the House of Commons set up under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). That is only nibbling at the root of the problem of how to return real accountability to this House. We should rediscover the confidence to be able to hold the Government to account and to ensure that we are not just run by the Whips through a process of advancement, preferment, ministerial office and whatever else. We represent the people of this country, and it is our duty and task to ensure that we are guaranteeing that they are governed in a proper and sensible manner. By ceding this massive degree of control to the European Union, we have abrogated our responsibility.
	I can understand that in 1945 people did not want to have another war in Europe. My father was killed in the war. However, times have changed. The problem is that the arrangements that were set up and the development of the functions of the European Union have not kept pace with what is required. We have allowed more and more integration when we should have been creating an association of member states. That is what we should have been doing, and that is what we have to come back to; otherwise the people of Europe will suffer as well as the people of the United Kingdom. We have to restore to the people, through the ballot box, real democracy on the ground. This is not just a theoretical and ideological approach-it is about making Europe work in the interests of the people whom we represent, as we are completely failing to do so.
	We are told that we have to put the economy ahead of the European issue, but the trouble is that the economy is affected by the European issue. There is over-regulation, which costs European businesses €600 billion a year. There are the problems of the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy, and so on. We have to restore government to the people of this country. That requires a referendum of a proper kind, which I will continue to insist on, and a sovereignty Bill that would ensure-I have a wording that would achieve this objective-that we have a template against which we can repatriate powers and force renegotiation within the European Union. That is our objective, and that is what we must achieve. It is in the national interest, and we must do it immediately.

David Drew: As always, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I did not vote in favour of entry into the so-called Common Market in 1975, and I was a loyal supporter of the Labour party in 1983, when I thought we had a rather good policy on Europe. Some of us have not changed our minds and will continue not to.
	I shall be brief, because I know that other hon. Members want to get in. As always in such debates, we could say a lot more than we have time available to say it in. I shall start in the same vein as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) by being optimistic. Where Europe is at its best will be seen this weekend in our contribution to the Copenhagen debate. It is right and proper that we have a unified approach and put forward how the UK and the wider EU intend to reduce their dependence on carbon. I hope that we will not only talk the talk but walk the walk and make tangible proposals for how we can reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.

Mark Francois: On that point, we all want a deal at Copenhagen.
	In my speech earlier, I said in reference to a debate in the European Parliament that five socialist-aligned MEPs had voted against a motion. I have since double-checked that, and in fact they abstained. I therefore wish to take this opportunity to correct the record, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for intervening on him to do so.

David Drew: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has corrected the record. I do not quite know how people can abstain on climate change, but there may be some wonderful explanation in due course.
	Another area in which the EU has a credible record is international development. When we go out into the field, we see that there is greater co-operation between the nation states of Europe. I have sometimes criticised some of them for not paying the contribution that they should have done, particularly for provision in the country that I care most about, the Sudan. However, it makes sense that we have international relationships so that by pooling our budgets and expertise, we can make more of a contribution on the ground.
	I turn to matters on which I am far less optimistic than my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North. I shall be quite brutal about the non-referendums. The "cast-iron guarantee" of the Conservatives, which was nothing more than words, and what has happened with my own party and the Liberal Democrats, show why the British electorate have no faith in any of us when it comes to Europe. Each of our parties in turn has let them down. We promised them a referendum and have reneged on it. Anyone who thinks that that has been forgotten about forgets the European elections in May, in which the electorate gave us a kicking-particularly my party, whose policies and position on Europe are anything but credible. They will not forget it at the next general election. That is why some of us will not be standing on a platform other than to say, "It will not be a question of a referendum on Lisbon; it will be a question of a referendum on in or out."

David Drew: I do know of that, but I would trace the problem back even further. Martin Wiener and Correlli Barnett trace it back to the 19th century, when finance was always able to outwit manufacturing. There is a connivance whereby the City of London has grown more powerful. It has done so not only in its own right, but because it has destroyed manufacturing. Any manufacturer in this country will be incandescent at their inability to derive flows of capital. The capital gets sucked up into housing, high finance and bank-rolling around the world at the expense of our manufacturing industry.
	If we are serious about restoring that industry-and we have an opportunity to do so given the relative depreciation of the pound-we can only succeed if we go back to owning those assets nationally and deriving the ability to manufacture in our own right in this country. That would begin to raise the role of manufacturing in terms of its GDP percentage, and that should be one of our targets. I am not a great target setter-Governments tend to set all manner of targets and then cannot reach them-but we should aim to double the amount of manufacturing over the lifetime of the next two Parliaments. That is not much to ask, given that that is where we were in 1997. We probably will not get back in the next two decades what we lost in the last decade, and I realise how hard it will be, but that is what we have to do.
	The anti-industrial culture that has been rife in this country for the last 100 years or more has to be taken on. I never worry when the City of London has its wings clipped or when high finance is curtailed and controlled, because it is at the root of the failings of the British political system. All that has happened is that the City of London has exported its power to the EU, which has been a willing co-conspirator in that regard, and British manufacturing has declined ever more quickly. We must face up to that problem, because otherwise we will rue the day that we failed to deal with it.
	As always on these occasions, there seem to be more sceptical voices on the Labour Benches than voices in favour of the EU. That is because those of us who care passionately about Europe are still fighting our corner. We may not be in the majority at the moment, but stranger things have happened and parties have changed their mind.

Mark Harper: I want to make a brief contribution.
	I would like to draw the Minister's attention to my earlier questions, two of which he failed to answer, but to which I hope he will return in his winding-up speech. The first was about why the Government chose not to fulfil their manifesto promise to give the British people a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. They, along with the other major parties in the House, promised to do that. He failed to answer that with his unfortunate humorous remarks.
	Furthermore, will the Minister answer my question about the Prime Minister trumpeting the fact that Baroness Ashton is a Briton and that her promotion to High Representative will give Britain a voice in the European Council and Commission? To be fair, the Minister has not done that. In fact, he and the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) accurately pointed out that Baroness Ashton will of course represent the Commission, not Britain. He was honest enough to say that, but the Prime Minister has not been putting it in quite the same way. It would be helpful if the Minister cast his opinion on that when he winds up.
	My main point-I have a couple of subsidiary ones-draws attention to something that another Member has referred to already. The title of the debate is "European Affairs", but in such debates we tend to launch immediately into EU matters, forgetting that there are other countries in Europe. We also then become very introspective and focus only on our future in Europe.
	Conservative Members are often criticised by Labour Members-this is one of their favourite lines-for being little Englanders or, as I heard earlier in this debate, for not liking Europe because it has foreigners in it. My problem is that Europe is not foreign enough! It constitutes a very small part of the world's population and will increasingly represent a smaller share of the world's economy. My problem is that, if we spend too much time focusing on our economic performance relative to other members of the EU, we will lose sight of the fact that we must compete, win business and capture markets in the rest of the rapidly growing world. If our businesses and future prosperity are to be assured, we need to keep an eye on the rest of the world and not obsess about our position in the EU. That is something the Government often forget to do.
	I see now from looking at my notes that it was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) who mentioned foreigners, while talking about my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). As I said, my argument is that Europe is not foreign enough.
	One reason why we should consider our position from a global perspective is that our interests are not always aligned and we are often in competition with other parts of the EU. One need only look at our trade arrangements. If we look at the countries to which we export our goods, we see that our single largest trading partner is the United States of America. If we look through the trading figures of our largest European neighbours, we see that they trade with the United States to a much lesser degree and that much more of their trade is with other EU countries, so there is a significant difference there. Sometimes our interests are not aligned with our colleagues'.
	Owing to our history and other relationships in the world, we have many other forums in which to argue our case-for example, the Commonwealth. The Heads of Government meeting took place recently, which the Government made much of and trumpeted. That is rare for them because they often pretend that the Commonwealth does not exist. However, that is one forum in which our place in the world can be argued. Given the size of the Commonwealth, the number of people it contains and its possible significance in dealing with climate change-it contains India-it might be a more significant place than the EU in which to argue some of these matters, and it is certainly as important as the EU.
	When thinking about our interests and place in the world, we must not focus only on the EU; we must take a wider, more global view. The trends over the next few years are very interesting. The European Commission's research department has prepared an interesting document called "The World in 2025: Rising Asia and Socio-ecological Transition"-not a terribly catchy title, I admit. However, some of its statistics are very interesting:
	"In 2025, the population of the European Union will only account for 6.5 % of the world population."
	The population will be much older than that elsewhere, as well.
	The document also says:
	"In 2025 world production will almost have doubled (in relation to 2005). The USA-EU-Japan triad will no longer dominate the world",
	although it points out that the United States will preserve its economic leadership. One or two colleagues referred to a united states of Europe and those who are trying to create a federal state, with a President of the European Council, a Foreign Minister and other pretensions to being a single country. However, if they are trying to model that on the United States of America, the bit they are missing is the United States' economic dynamism and fast economic growth. Even in 2025, the United States will still be the largest economy in the world and still have a high per capita income. That part of the United States' record is the one we want to emulate, rather than trying to turn the countries in the European Union into a united states of Europe.
	The Commission's report makes it clear that
	"The centre of gravity of world production will move towards Asia. The group made up of China-India-Korea will weigh as much as the European Union."
	As I have said, we have relations with our Commonwealth partners, and particularly close relations with India. We should be ensuring that British firms and businesses are in there winning orders from Indian consumers and businesses, to ensure that we get our fair share. As the report says, India may be
	"the sixth economic power of the world"
	by 2025, ahead of Italy and only a little behind France. We need to ensure that we get our fair share of that business, but I am concerned that we will miss out.
	In my earlier remarks I touched on the settlement of the top jobs at the European summit the other week. I have already mentioned what the European High Representative is going to get paid, but the President of the European Council will earn £320,000, making him the highest paid leader, if that is the word-he is slightly more of a chairman than a chief. He will earn more than any leader of a western country, with a huge staff and a significant number of press officers to get the message out there, and will have a £5 million reserve fund to dip into as his job develops.
	Interestingly, the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) suggested that it was welcome that Mr. Van Rompuy had been elected as the President of the European Council because he will just be taking instructions from everybody else. However, that is not what French President Nicholas Sarkozy said. He said he had known Mr. Van Rompuy for many years, adding:
	"talk to those who know him well...and you'll see. I'm going to tell you something: I think he's one of the strongest personalities around the Council table."
	That is quite worrying when we think, to take just one example, about what the hon. Gentleman said about Mr. Van Rompuy's views about Turkey. As one or two others have said, we are strongly in favour, as are the Government, rightly, of Turkish accession to the European Union, both from a strategic and military perspective-Turkey is a strong and close NATO ally-and, as the Minister correctly said, from the point of view of energy security.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), who yet again has shown himself to be a serious politician who introduces to debates subjects that have not been raised earlier.
	We have been lucky enough to have on our Front Benches today some of the most important politicians in this Parliament: the rising stars of this Parliament. We have, of course, the dynamic duo on the Conservative Front Bench, and on the Labour Front Bench we have the Minister for Europe, who, I understand, now likes to be called Cardinal Richelieu. If I am one of the three musketeers, he is the evil one. On the Liberal Democrat Front Bench we have the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). I do not think that she will have a chance to speak today, but I am sure that she would always defend to the hilt whatever Liberal Democrat policy on Europe happened to be on that particular day.
	Let me now make a serious point, as one who is pro-European but anti-EU. We have spoken today of the number of service personnel in Afghanistan. I have a personal interest in that. It seems wrong that some of our European partners are not committed enough to the war in Afghanistan-although others are committing their troops alongside ours and those of the Americans, and they are suffering frightful casualties. It is, I believe, also the Government's position that some of our colleagues in the European Union are not doing enough. I do not know how the Government will deal with the problem. I know that they are at the heart of Europe, and I know that they have a great deal of power in Europe, but they do not seem to be entirely successful in that particular regard.
	Let me return to the stars on the Front Benches. There is a clear divide between them. On the Government Front Bench sits someone who really believes in the European Union, and really believes in a federal state. No-I should say "one state", a European state. I apologise for calling it a federal state. What the Minister believes in is one state called Europe. On our side is someone else who believes equally strongly in a Europe of nation states-someone who opposes the Lisbon treaty, and who actually speaks for the British people. That leads me rather nicely to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who has been consistent on Europe and has spoken for the British people.  [Laughter.] Labour Members laugh because they do not understand what consistency means.
	Let us go back a little in history. Why not? No one is listening today. There is no one up in the Galleries, and even the Whip has put down his pen. We can be honest, and the Government can be honest, about the situation. The only reason why they were elected at the 2005 general election is that they did two clever things. Their spin department-their polls-told them that the people wanted a say on Europe. The other thing that their polls told them was that people were scared stiff of Gordon Brown. So what we got was a promise that Tony Blair would serve a full term. Labour went back on that-there was no consistency there-and of course, when it came to the promise of a referendum on a European constitution, they went back on that as well. That is why they are in so much trouble. This is not about the actual issue; it is about lack of faith-about their lack of consistency. We just cannot believe them any longer.
	By way of contrast, let us turn to the new leader of the Conservative party. When I was considering who to vote for in the leadership election, I asked one of the candidates, who is now the leader of the party, "Are we going to pull out of the European People's party, as we can't have Conservatives sitting in the European Parliament who are federalists?" He replied, "Yes, we will." People said that would not happen, but he has delivered on it. He also said we would have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty if it had not been ratified first. He was absolutely truthful about that, too.
	Anyone who believes that the leader of my party-or, for that matter, the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)-did not want to have that referendum is living in cloud cuckoo land. The first thing our new Foreign Secretary would have done would have been to go to Europe and get the articles of ratification back, and we would have had that referendum within six weeks. The fact is, of course, that that cannot now happen. Our policy for the current circumstance of the Lisbon treaty having been ratified was that we would not let matters rest, and within 24 hours we knew where we were going, which was to have this new, exciting, forward-looking Conservative party policy, which will win us so many votes.
	When my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) becomes Prime Minister, as I sincerely believe he will, he will be the most Eurosceptic leader of our country since Mrs. Thatcher. He will be more Eurosceptic than the current Prime Minister and Tony Blair-or John Major, for that matter-and he will do something that none of those Prime Ministers attempted, which has never been done before: he will get powers back from Europe.  [Interruption.] Labour Members say that it cannot be done, but it can if we follow the reverse salami-slicing principle. If we try to eat a whole salami sausage in one go, we spit it out in disgust, but if we eat it slice by slice, it is okay and we can put up with it. That is how the European Union has taken so much more power over the past 25 or 30 years. We have never been asked if we want to give up any of those powers, but, slice by slice, it has taken them away.

Jo Swinson: I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is slightly contradicting the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who at yesterday's Prime Minister's questions seemed to spend most of the time pointing out that Britain was lagging behind many countries that are members of the euro in coming out of the recession. How does the hon. Gentleman square that with what he has been saying?

David Lidington: I am sure that the whole House is impatient to see the Cabinet photograph for the first Administration of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone).
	What has been most striking about this debate-I am grateful to all Members from all parties who have taken part-was the degree of consensus that we saw emerging. It was perhaps unexpected, particularly for the Minister. We heard the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) remind us of the need to see the European Union as it is, and not through some kind of romantic haze as the institution that we might wish it to be. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) argued for the need to repatriate powers from a European to a national level. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) spoke of how powers had been steadily accumulated at a supranational level without the consent of the people being sought, let alone given. Far from my party being the one left marginalised or isolated, as the Minister charged, it was the Minister who found himself increasingly in that position as the debate continued. The only wholehearted, enthusiastic support for his speech came from the Potemkin opposition on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
	The truth is that the official Opposition see the European Union as an important means to advance the interests of the United Kingdom. It is in our national interest that the EU should work well, and that means that we want it to focus on those issues that matter most to the peoples of Europe and for it to function in a way that is much more accountable so that public support for membership can be genuine rather than grudging or resentful, as is too often the case, and not merely in the UK.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), in particular, pointed out, that means we need the European Union to focus on the challenge of the global economy and the fact that Europe's relative position in the world economy is slipping backwards. If we are not careful, its absolute position in the world economy might also slip as new economic powers in Asia and Latin America gather strength.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend will have to forgive me; I will not give way, as the time is very short.
	We also want to see the Union strengthening further the single market and not relaxing into the protectionism that some of us fear following the recent appointments to the Commission. We want the European Union to focus on the challenges of global poverty and climate change. We also want the Union to be much more accountable than it is now.
	The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) was right to talk about the need for better, more rigorous parliamentary scrutiny. I am sure that he will have been delighted by the Conservative party's proposals in that regard. It is also right, as a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued, that Parliament should debate European Union issues more frequently and in a more timely fashion. I thought that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston was right to talk about the serious implications of the creation of the European External Action Service, and I hope that when the Minister responds he will pledge on behalf of the Government that they will allow proper time for Parliament to examine and debate the implications of that reform.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked specifically about Conservative policy on the referendum. I assure the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who is now representing him on the Front Bench, that the Conservative party has a very clear policy on the referendum, which will appear in our manifesto. Given what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) has said in recent days, the same cannot be said of the Liberal Democrat party. We are saying that any treaty that proposes the transfer of further competences to the European Union from the national level should not be ratified by the United Kingdom unless it is confirmed by the British people in a referendum. We would apply that rule to any proposal from a future Government that Britain should join the euro.
	The other issue that troubled the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, on which he sought to tease my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), was the European arrest warrant. I must ask the hon. Lady to go back to the hon. Gentleman with a reading list. If she had been speaking on behalf of her party, she might not have made the same error, but it was none other than the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), the Liberal Democrats' official spokesman on home affairs, who wrote on 4 October 2008 that the European arrest warrant was
	"rushed through without proper thought as a knee-jerk reaction to terrorist offences."
	Not only the hon. Gentleman, but Lord Burnett and Baroness Ludford, MEP, have called for the European arrest warrant to be looked at again, and for the laws concerning it to be changed. The reason why my party is worried about the warrant is that it puts citizens of this country at risk of facing trial for actions that are not criminal under the laws of the United Kingdom. It also risks the extradition of United Kingdom citizens, without prima facie evidence being demonstrated to a British court, to jurisdictions where they might face trial for offences that are not related to terrorism or to the very serious offences to which the Minister referred. That situation could lead to British citizens, for whom a prima facie case has never been presented before a court, facing considerable periods of detention without trial in jurisdictions that do not have the same traditions of habeas corpus or bail that we have here. I must say to the hon. Lady that there was once a time when people who described themselves as liberals would have stood up for the liberties and freedoms enjoyed by British citizens, and would not have sought to restrict them in the way that her colleague did today.
	The Minister took us through the agenda of the forthcoming European Council, but he focused much of his time on chiding my party about our allies in the European Parliament. I thought that my hon. Friend comprehensively demolished the Minister's case in his excellent speech, so I shall leave the Minister with just one thought on the subject. In the European Parliament, Conservative MEPs sit alongside Polish MEPs who were active in dissident movements and were imprisoned by the former regime for that activity, whereas Labour party MEPs sit alongside Polish MEPs who were active members of the Polish Communist party that was responsible for imprisoning those who sit with my colleagues in the European Parliament.
	I understand the Minister's reluctance to celebrate his Government's vision for the future of Europe, because it has become clear in the past few days that for all their claims of influence, we have seen a massive defeat for United Kingdom diplomacy. The Conservatives wish Baroness Ashton well, but the fact that no major economic portfolio in the Commission is now held by a Briton rightly causes us serious concern.
	We could see how uncomfortable the Government were over this matter by the way that their story kept changing. First of all, the media were briefed about the Prime Minister's epic battle to stop Monsieur Barnier getting the job of Internal Market Commissioner at all. Then the line was "adjusted", as the Business Secretary might have put it, to say that, even if Monsieur Barnier were appointed, financial services would be removed from his portfolio. Now, in the aftermath of utter defeat, the Government are trying to pretend that everything is okay and there is nothing to worry about. If we are to believe the Minister, Monsieur Barnier has probably forgotten altogether that he was ever French.
	However, that was not the view of the President of the Republic of France, whose words have been referred to by a number of colleagues. Frankly, it is difficult to see how the President of the Republic, short of climbing personally up the steps of Notre Dame to ring a celebratory peal, could have celebrated more conspicuously the appointment of Monsieur Barnier as a decisive triumph for France and for French interest in Europe.
	The truth is that this Government like to boast about their influence in Europe. We need Britain to maximise its influence in Europe, but we should measure that not by the number of times that the Government meekly assent to things proposed by others, but by whether European decisions advance our country's interests. For that to happen, however, we need a change of approach, and a change of Government.

Chris Bryant: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the debate. I had hoped to be able to commend the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on his speech, because I am a friend of his and we often train at the same time in the gym. However, I think that he has been sitting too close to the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and that he has caught some of his infections. It is as though a rising damp has slowly taken hold of his brain.
	We have seen the sad obsessions of the Conservative party this afternoon. The Opposition's opening and closing speeches were both completely obsessed with tittle-tattle and gossip dressed up as political arguments. They are obsessed with talking about treaty making, which is something that countries in the rest of Europe have decided is not worth spending time on because they want to move forward on the things that really matter to ordinary families, such as jobs and economic prosperity. However, the hon. Member for Rayleigh did make two serious points, on Cyprus and Iran, and I agree with him on both.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, is not now in the Chamber. He asked whether it was right for us to have moved so swiftly on the timetable for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU. It is pretty well universally accepted that we should have been much stricter in enforcing the various different chapters. Indeed, an additional chapter has now been added, and that is important for the accession talks with Turkey and Croatia.
	My hon. Friend also asked a specific question about the Standing Orders that affect his Committee. He wants them changed to allow both legislative and non-legislative measures to go to the Committee on exactly the same basis. I do not think that that is possible, however, as it would make it very difficult for the Government to fulfil their required representational role in Europe.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) supported the appointment of Monsieur Barnier as Internal Market Commissioner, as do I. He, too, referred to Cyprus and Iran, but he also talked about Bosnia, which is one of the matters on which we could have had more debate.
	The situation in Bosnia is very worrying. Although the military task is over, it does not mean that all the troops there should be drawn down. It remains important to maintain security and to complete the transition of the Office of the High Representative at the same time as we change the configuration of the military presence there.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is not in his seat either-my friends seem to have abandoned me!-but he was very nice about me and I was going to be very nice about him in return. He raised the important matter of Sri Lanka, which I do not think will be debated at next week's European Council meeting. We agree wholeheartedly that although there have been significant changes in recent months and the number of people allowed to leave the camps and return to their homes has increased, there is none the less a serious humanitarian issue in Sri Lanka that needs to be addressed. We believe that a robust European Union position is important.
	The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) raised several things. He mentioned the EU auditors and the UK's net contribution to the European Union. As I am sure he will know, the level of UK contribution varies each year according to several different elements, including our rate of economic growth relative to those of other member states, the value of the abatement, the pound-euro exchange rate, the size of the in-year EC budget and the level of our receipts from that budget. It is a fairly complex set of figures.
	I agree with him completely on the common agricultural policy. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) that it should be completely abolished. If there were no common policy, there would simply be a French agricultural policy, an Italian one, a German one, a Spanish one and so on, which would be considerably worse. However, I do believe that the CAP should be significantly reformed. We would like CAP pillar 1 to be phased out, which we believe would also help less prosperous member states grow their economies in line with the Lisbon strategy.
	I hope that I am not breaking a confidence by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said outside the Chamber that I had made a wonderful speech.

Chris Bryant: It did not feel as if he was saying it inside. It was couched in so much irony-

Chris Bryant: As I said, my hon. Friend's opinion was so couched in irony and sarcasm that it somehow ended up sounding like exactly the opposite.
	The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who has changed his seat but is none the less still here, referred to burden sharing in Afghanistan. We believe that that is important. We were pleased with the discussions at the October Council meeting and its conclusions, which made it clear that all member states must step up to the mark in terms of national caveats, number of troops and where they are prepared to engage. He is absolutely right that we need to make an effort, and not just within the European Union. I am sure that there will be further discussion, whether in the margins or during the meeting next week.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North said that he believed in a pragmatic approach to Europe. I agree completely and utterly. His, however, is the theological approach, and I disagree with his analysis of what he always refers to as a neo-liberal model of economics. I remember him sitting next to me on many occasions and confidently predicting that the Germans would leave the euro within two years, but that does not seem to have happened.
	The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) made one of the most thoughtful contributions. I am not damning him with faint praise; it was a good speech, to which he obviously brought a lot of his experience of the European Union. As somebody who has worked for the BBC in Brussels and with the European Parliament to try to ensure that it produces policies that are good for Britain, I know something about how the Parliament works. He is completely wrong about the Conservative grouping in the European Parliament. In my experience, many members of the European People's Party are actively vindictive towards the European Conservatives and Reformists because they are angry at how the hon. Gentleman's party political leader has advanced their cause over the past couple of years. When he says that it is great that the Canada and Iraq groups are chaired by a Tory, he is clutching at straws.
	The hon. Gentleman used a phrase that I think some countries in the east find offensive by saying that they were suddenly frightened of being dominated by Brussels as they were dominated by Moscow. They take great exception when some Conservatives use that line. However, I agree completely about the caravanserai to Strasbourg. I only wish that his party was prepared to accept qualified majority voting on the issue so that we could get rid of the present ludicrous situation.
	I hope that I can answer the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). She is right about the passerelle clause. I do not think that it makes any difference whether Parliament votes after a one-and-a-half-hour debate or passes a piece of primary legislation. The point is that Parliament should take a view. She asked about the rules of procedure, and I want to correct her on one point: the Council of Ministers was an institution before the Lisbon treaty came into force; it is the European Council that now becomes an institution.  [ Interruption. ] Well, as she knows, they are two different bodies.
	I think that all-
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Philip Hollobone: I thank Mr. Speaker for allowing me to speak on this topic in the Adjournment debate tonight, and I welcome the Minister from the Department of Health to her place. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Jeanette Crizzle Trust, which will feature regularly in tonight's debate.
	The executive summary of my remarks is that the NHS Blood and Transplant's Give and Let Live donor education programme is a wonderful scheme, and I praise the Government for introducing it. The problem is that only 7 per cent. of schools are involved in it, and I urge the Government to do far more to promote the scheme among schools.
	The longer version of my speech now follows. The Jeanette Crizzle Trust is a research organisation that has been set up to measure the success of that education programme and to establish the degree of public awareness of blood, organ, bone marrow and tissue donation. It aims to achieve those ends by conducting a series of research projects that are likely to take place over many years, including independent tracking research. The trust's aim is not to promote blood, tissue, bone marrow and organ donation itself, but to monitor the success of the Government's Give and Let Live donor education programme.
	That all started in October 2005, when Mrs. Jeanette Crizzle, who was a resident of Kettering, was very sadly diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia. This was obviously very tragic news for her and her wonderful family: her husband Adam and her two teenage children, Emily and Nicholas. Jeanette was an English teacher at Bedford preparatory school, and she had been in the teaching profession for the best part of 30 years. In the fight to combat her condition, there was a desperate need to find a suitable donor who would enable her to undergo a bone marrow transplant. The complication in Jeanette's case was that she came from a mixed Mediterranean and English background; her mother was Greek and her father was half Italian and half English, so Jeanette was 75 per cent. Mediterranean and 25 per cent. English. It was extremely difficult to find a suitable bone marrow donor to match her heritage; in fact, it proved impossible. Very sadly, Jeanette died in October 2006.
	When the Crizzle family were advised in January 2006 that it was unlikely that a suitable bone marrow donor would be found, Jeanette's husband Adam decided to give up his job, not only to care for her but to launch an international campaign to try to find a suitable donor. He started with e-mails and internet activity among his friends and acquaintances. Bedford preparatory school, where Jeanette worked, swung in behind the campaign and mobile clinics were established in Bedford, Kettering and elsewhere to try to encourage people of Mediterranean origin to become bone marrow donors. An extensive media campaign was launched and achieved terrific coverage not only in the regional media but further afield. Initiatives included publicity on London Greek Radio and attempts to tap into communities in Greece, Italy, the United States and Australia, all in a desperate search for a suitable donor. It was a remarkable effort, reflecting Adam's positive philosophy about the dilemma in which he and his family found themselves.
	The highlight of the campaign was a meeting at the Department of Health with the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), then a Health Minister, in April 2006. At that meeting, Adam presented a report to the Minister to encourage the Government to undertake an initiative to promote the benefits of bone marrow donation in schools. The Department decided to take up the initiative, as it was in line with some of the thinking that it had been developing. The Government's positive response was confirmed in a letter from the Minister in May, and in June Adam was invited to an important meeting with the NHS Blood and Transplant service, to plan the details of how such an education initiative could be launched. That was the first of a series of many meetings that Adam has had with the service.
	The important part of Adam's initiative and any debate about bone marrow donation relates to the general misconception among the population at large about how easy it is to become a bone marrow donor. Following Jeanette's leukaemia diagnosis in October 2005, it became obvious to Adam that there is a terrible misunderstanding of what is involved in being such a donor. Most people assume that it involves a major operation; in fact, it can be no different to giving blood, except that it lasts rather longer. No discomfort or pain is involved at all. I have to say to anyone thinking of becoming a donor, but put off by the thought of the procedures that they might need to go through, that it is a lot easier than most people think. If the general UK population understood that point, far more people would come forward to be donors in the first place.
	That was confirmed by an exercise conducted at a school in Bedford by Mike Mallalieu, head of science, who, with Adam, undertook a presentation and two questionnaires for sixth formers at the school. Before that exercise in 2006, the first questionnaire found that 25 per cent. of the students were prepared to be a donor, and 65 per cent. were not too sure. After the presentation, when it had been made clear how easy donation was, 89 per cent. said that they were prepared to be bone marrow donors, and only 3 per cent. were not sure. Those findings so impressed the Department of Health that it has decided to take up Adam's initiative.
	The statistics are startling. Most people on bone marrow registers are never required to donate their marrow at all. For example, of the 371,000 people on the Anthony Nolan Trust register, only about 300 a year are called to be donors. Indeed, there are some 273,000 donors on the British bone marrow register, which is only 1.2 per cent. of the 23 million people in this country aged between 18 and 44 who would be eligible to donate.
	In January 2007, I was delighted to be able to raise this matter with the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, at Prime Minister's questions. I asked him:
	"Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House his Government's commitment to launch a donation awareness campaign in all secondary schools in September?"
	He replied:
	"We are indeed developing an education pack for schools to promote donation among 14 to 16-year-olds, and that pack will be offered to every school from this September onwards. In addition, we are looking at how we can build up our organ donation levels to those of other European countries. A taskforce is looking at recommendations and it will report shortly. I very much hope that that will align our thinking with that of the voluntary organisation that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. This is a serious question, particularly for people who suffer from leukaemia, as Mrs. Crizzle did; there is a real opportunity to make a difference in saving lives if we can extend the organ donation range."-[ Official Report, 24 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 1418.]

Philip Hollobone: I am most grateful for that helpful intervention by my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. There are two fundamental issues: first, a shortage of donors, full stop; and secondly, a particular shortage of donors where specific ethnicity is involved.
	That brings me to the launch, in September 2007, of the education programme aimed at promoting awareness of bone marrow, blood and organ donation among 14 to 16-year-old pupils in state and independent secondary schools across the UK. The programme was recommended for use in the following classes: personal, social and health education, economics, citizenship, science, and information and communication technologies; it was later extended to religious education. The resource comprised a teachers' pack and a website and includes lesson plans, activity sheets, real-life stories, debating topics, games, films and other activities. I believe that the website has won an award because it is so good.
	In 2008, the Jeanette Crizzle Trust commissioned BJS Research Ltd, an independent market research company, to conduct research to assess the level of awareness of the scheme among schools. The research found that only 3 per cent. of schools had used the resource in the first year, but the vast majority said that they were likely to use it in the future. However, 77 per cent. were not aware of it. In September 2008, I am pleased to say, the Secretaries of State for Health and for Children, Schools and Families wrote a letter to head teachers in all secondary schools in England promoting the scheme. That was a wonderful initiative.
	In March 2009, six months after the letter from the Secretaries of State had been sent out, the Jeanette Crizzle Trust conducted research that found that among 250 schools surveyed, 28 per cent. were aware of the letter, and 4 per cent. had a vague memory of it, but 68 per cent. had no recollection at all, or no record of its ever having been received. Of the 28 per cent. who confirmed that they had received the letter, 100 per cent. told the trust that it was not the intention of the school to implement the Give and Let Live resource in the foreseeable future. That is of course extremely disappointing given the personal intervention by the Secretaries of State.
	The Jeanette Crizzle Trust has commissioned research through annual reports in 2008 and 2009, as well as the specific piece of research following the letter sent out by the Secretaries of State. The latest research shows that of 512 schools surveyed, only 22 per cent. of teachers are aware of the programme, which is no change on the first year. Some 18 per cent. said that they had received the pack, which is more than the 11 per cent. in the first year, but only 7 per cent. said that they had used the resource. That is hugely disappointing given the award-winning nature of the programme that the Government put together. In October, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), wrote to Mr. Crizzle to say that as far as the Department was concerned, 68 per cent. of secondary school teachers had ordered the pack. That may or may not be true, but the Jeanette Crizzle Trust's research suggested that only 7 per cent. were actually using the programme.
	The Department of Health recognises the economic case for increased organ donation, and I am sure that we will hear in a minute of the wonderful things that it is doing to promote it across the country, not least because transplantation could save the NHS something like £150 million a year by reducing dialysis costs. In the correspondence with Mr. Crizzle, the Minister of State said:
	"That is why we are fully supportive of NHSBT's work"-
	the work of NHS Blood and Transplant-
	"to drive up donation rates, and we are putting additional investment into the infrastructure for organ donation."
	However, Mr. Crizzle and the trust are concerned that the Department is relying too much on the figure of 68 per cent. of schools having ordered the pack. In a letter to the Minister of State last month, he wrote that
	"this 68 per cent. is just stating how many teachers have ordered the programme. It does not state how many intend to use it."
	The Government say that 33 per cent. of teachers have taught the programme using the resource, but Mr. Crizzle pointed out that that
	"is based upon a survey of 86 teachers...which is not truly representative of the number of UK schools and therefore the level of accuracy is questionable. I should point out that our annual surveys are based upon a national sample of 500 schools and are therefore significantly more statistically robust."
	In the research conducted to see whether schools had received the letter from the two Secretaries of State, head teachers unanimously said that they had no intention of launching the programme and, according to Mr. Crizzle, gave the following reasons:
	"There are other Government directives which have a higher priority...There is no additional funding for the Give and Let Live resource...Limited resources within the school preventing them including the Give and Let Live pack",
	and finally:
	"They will find it difficult to fit everything into the timetable."
	Mr. Crizzle's letter concluded:
	"Taking the above into account, it is fair and reasonable to suggest that our August 2009 survey, which showed that just 7 per cent. of UK schools have accepted the programme, is accurate."
	I conclude where I started, by congratulating the Department of Health and the Department for Children, Schools and Families on getting the scheme under way. It is a wonderful programme. But I ask them to please, please put far more emphasis on promoting it. We need to get every school in the land involved, so that we can encourage more donors to come forward. It is a wonderful idea, and I ask Her Majesty's Government to promote it far more.

Ann Keen: I start by thanking the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) for securing the debate and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) for his important intervention. I recognise the admirable work of the hon. Member for Kettering in supporting Adam Crizzle, who, as he described, has campaigned tirelessly to raise young people's awareness of donation since the very sad death of his wife Jeanette. I was sad to hear of her having died in such unfortunate and tragic circumstances, having given so much to her community as a teacher.
	All forms of donation are important, which makes the role of NHSBT, as the special health authority responsible for ensuring the supply of blood, organs, stem cells and tissue for patients, so crucial. It saves lives every single day, and we should all be thankful for it. NHSBT needs to collect 7,000 units of blood every day to ensure that patients have access to life-saving blood and products when they are needed. However, in order to secure the blood supply to hospitals and patients, 350,000 new blood donors must be recruited every year to replace those who have had to stop donating. Thanks to the efforts of the National Blood Service and the altruism of existing donors, there has not been a shortage of blood in the UK for many years.
	The Government are proud of the support we provide to NHSBT, and committed to continuing that in future years. That includes initiatives such as the Give and Let Live campaign, to which the hon. Member for Kettering referred. Designed to raise awareness among young people of the importance of donating, Give and Let Live is an award-winning educational resource pack produced by NHSBT. Developed to be delivered by teachers as part of personal health and social education, science studies or religious education, it is aimed at 14 to 16-year-olds. Since its launch in September 2007, it has been made available to 6,000 state and independent schools across the UK.
	The independent evaluation of that programme showed that, as of September 2009, 68 per cent. of secondary schools have ordered the pack. Promoting altruistic donation to young people, who will be the donors of tomorrow, is not just good for patients who need transplants but exceptionally good for our society.
	Other initiatives are being considered. My Department and the Department for Children, Schools and Families are considering how best to raise awareness of the various forms of donation among children and young people. Another education programme, Register and Be a Lifesaver, which has worked with the Give and Let Live campaign, has just completed a successful pilot phase. Delivered in partnership with the Anthony Nolan Trust, a key third-sector partner in so much of this work, the programme was set up following a campaign by the journalist Adrian Sudbury, who died of leukaemia and used the last months of his life to campaign for greater awareness of donation. It targets 16 to 18-year-olds and seeks to empower young people to make their own decisions on becoming a donor.
	However, it is not always easy to meet the needs of everyone and provide treatment to all those who need it. That is especially so when we are trying to find a suitable stem cell unit to use in the treatment of acute blood disorders such as leukaemia and anaemia. In those cases, it is important that a match donor be found. A related donor, usually a brother or sister, offers the best chance of achieving that, but unfortunately only 25 to 35 per cent. of patients have a match sibling. We therefore rely on unrelated donors.
	Because transplants have become more common over the years, it is easy to forget just how difficult that work can be. Finding a donor who is genetically matched to the person needing treatment, fit enough to donate and willing to do so is a mixture of luck, hard work and professional dedication of epic proportions. Every time the process is successful, it is a major achievement that only those directly involved truly appreciate.
	The task becomes even harder when the patient's genetic background is complex, as was the case for Jeanette, whose early death led to the introduction of the Give and Let Live campaign, as the hon. Gentleman said. However, the British Bone Marrow Registry, its counterpart in Wales and the Anthony Nolan Trust, which runs the largest bone marrow donor register in the UK, do that work daily. More than 13 million unrelated donors are available in registries worldwide. Currently, most come from a Caucasian ethnic background. Therefore, a typical patient from that racial group has more than a 90 per cent. chance of finding a matched unrelated donor, but that figure falls substantially for patients from ethnic minorities or for those who have a mixed genetic inheritance, who have only a 30 or 40 per cent. chance of finding a good match. Jeanette's husband must be congratulated on the tireless work he did to save her.
	The Government have taken and continue to take strategic and targeted action to tackle the problem. We must not forget that the collection and use of bone marrow is but one source of stem cells for transplant. The NHS cord blood bank is the fourth biggest in the world, with some 14,000 stored umbilical cord blood units, and it has agreed business plans with NHSBT. We are investing nearly £10 million to increase the size of the bank to 20,000 stored units by 2013. A central aim of the NHS cord blood bank is to redress the imbalance of minority group representation on bone marrow registries by focusing collection at hospitals with ethnically diverse catchment areas. As a consequence, approximately 40 per cent. of donations come from the minority ethnic population, increasing the chances of finding matches for patients from diverse ethnic backgrounds.
	The NHS cord blood bank has one of the best records of harvesting and banking unique tissue types to add to those available for transplant in the UK and worldwide. As part of this continued work programme, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who has responsibility for public health, opened its newest collection site at St. George's hospital, Tooting, in October. As with all NHSBT's cord blood collection sites, St. George's was chosen because it serves families from a diverse multicultural mix.
	We fully recognise the essential contribution of this work in supplying the NHS with suitable stem cells for transplant-work that saves lives. That is why we are determined to facilitate and promote discussion and debate on the way forward for the harvesting and use of stem cells for transplant. A review of the collection and use of umbilical cord blood, commissioned by the Department of Health last year, found practice in the UK to be comparable to that elsewhere. The review recommended further, detailed consideration of the collection and use of cord blood and a joined-up approach to service provision. Since that time, discussions have been held with a wide range of stakeholders on the issues we face in the collection, storage, commissioning and use of stem cells for transplant, irrespective of the source from which they are derived. We want to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of this work and we are able to meet our obligations in matching stem cell donations to patients in need of a transplant.
	Whole organ donation is also critical work. Currently, three people die every day in the UK while waiting for a suitable donated organ. More than 10,000 people in the UK need an organ transplant, a figure that rises by 8 per cent. every year. The Prime Minister has called for 20 million registered donors by 2010 and 25 million by 2013. NHSBT is running a UK-wide public awareness campaign to encourage more people to join the organ donor register and to talk to their families about their wishes. Also, it will soon be distributing information packs to MPs with an interest in donation and organising an event for MPs and stakeholders to raise awareness of the challenges of its work.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of progress in schools. I know that all hon. Members are aware of the rigidity of the curriculum when it comes to such changes. I hope he understands that my role is not to look at the educational curriculum, although I believe that this debate is important and was well deserved. I will ask to meet the Minister for Schools and Learners and raise with him the importance of this debate, to see whether we can reconsider how we can encourage and facilitate participation in the scheme. As is accepted on both sides of the House, there are certain ministerial and departmental procedures to go through. However, I have given the hon. Gentleman a commitment, and I will seek to keep him informed and perhaps encourage him to come with me to that meeting.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.